Suchergebnisse

Change is here. If this was not evident from the speech of Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon at his welcome ceremony three years ago, it is now. In three short years, Singapore is leading Asia - possibly the world - in the provision of not only legal services but also intellectual capital and resources. The speed of these developments should not be surprising. As Attorney-General V.K. Rajah observed at the Opening of the Legal Year this month, Singapore's law and legal system has come a long way in a short time. The story of the Singapore legal system thus far can be told in three phases: consolidation (1965-1990), refinement (1990s-2000s) and internationalisation (today).

The Countervailing and Anti-dumping Duties Act 1996 ("the Act") came into effect on 1 November 1996.1 This legislation was enacted to bring Singapore's law in relation to countervailing duties, subsidies and antidumping into conformity with requirements of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreements It also updates the law by repealing the outmoded Customs (Subsidies and Anti-dumping) Act. The new rules and procedures in the Act are meant to "give added assurance and certainty to the local and foreign parties concerned whenever an action is instituted."In addition to the Act, detailed regulations have also been passed. The Act follows the basic requirements of the Antidumping and Subsidies Agreements closely, but also includes supplementary provisions. Part 11 of the Act deals with the area of countervailing duties in relation to subsidies. Part 111 deals with antidumping. Most of the provisions in Part 11 have parallel, if not identical, provisions in Part 111. Many of the provisions are adapted from those in Malaysia's Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Act 1993 ("the Malaysia Act"). This article will examine the administration of the Act, the antidumping and subsidy provisions, the review process and a number of other general issues.

Singapore registered design law is largely based on UK legislation and, notwithstanding subsequent amendments, the underlying principles remain broadly similar. This article aims to compare Singapore registered design law with EU legislation in relation to sets, modular systems and interconnections.'Sets of articles' are afforded protection under both Singapore law and EU registered design law. Under both regimes such protection can prove problematic, as under Singapore law it may require a court to make an artistic assessment as to whether the goods are of the same 'general character' and under EU law the Guidelines issued by the EUIPO appear to go far beyond the text of the Design Regulation. In addition, the advantages of this protection appear to be limited.The limited exception dealing to interconnecting design available under EU law is not available in Singapore. However, given the potential availability of other means of protection for such designs in Singapore, proposals for legislative reform that would incorporate this exception should be considered with caution.