Intellectual Property (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

12.01 pm

The Second Minister for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, it is a truism today that economic growth is increasingly driven by innovation and the intangible assets (IA) and intellectual property (IP) that innovation itself generates.

Today's businesses compete with and differentiate themselves from their competitors through innovation. Those who innovate and make good use of their IA and IP have prospered and grown. In fact, 90% of the value of S&P 500 companies today lies in their IA.

Today, IA accounts for more than half of the global value of assets. This is significant, as it means that intangible assets are worth more than physical assets. In other words, ideas and innovations are more valuable than the physical assets that they animate.

Sir, we recognise this and announced the Singapore IP Strategy 2030 in April 2021. This is to strengthen Singapore's position as a global IA and IP hub, attract and grow innovative enterprises using IA and IP, and develop good jobs and valuable skills in IA and IP.

As our businesses generate more IA and IP, the IP registration operations of our IP office become increasingly important. An efficient and business-friendly IP office makes it easier for our companies to protect their IA and IP and enhance their value propositions.

Singapore has been consistently recognised for our IP regime. The World Economic Forum ranks us first in Asia and second globally for IP protection. The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) is constantly striving to improve its services. Last year, it was recognised as the third most innovative IP office in the world.

In our region, over 80% of all requests under the ASEAN Patent Examination Cooperation programme relied on IPOS reports, which is to say, applicants rely on the speed and quality of our patent examination work to speed up their corresponding applications in other ASEAN countries.

But the world does not stand still and neither can we. IPOS regularly reviews its operations and processes to be more efficient and more importantly, to be business friendly. This Bill is the result and product of such a review. And based on the responses we have received to our public consultation exercises; our stakeholders are generally supportive of the changes we have tabled today.

Today's Intellectual Property (Amendment) Bill makes changes to many of the IP statutes, specifically, the Patents Act, the Trade Marks Act, the Registered Designs Act, the Plant Varieties Protection Act and the Geographical Indications Act 2014. These changes will result in improvements across three broad categories: first, to ensure enhanced business-friendliness; second, on operational efficiency; and third, to enhance legislative and procedural clarity.

Let me now take Members through the changes in the Bill.

To improve IPOS' business-friendliness, the Bill introduces four major changes to improve the experience for applicants seeking to register their IP with IPOS.

The first change will streamline the administrative process for international patent applications which are not in English.

The Patents Act currently ties certain rights of a patent-holder to the date when the patent application is published, for instance, when determining damages for infringement. However, for the 15% or so of the international patent applications that enter Singapore which are not in English, these rights are only conferred if IPOS publishes the English translation of the applications upon the payment of a fee.

Clause 15 removes the requirement for a fee. Instead, as part of its routine process, IPOS will see to the publication of the English translation received from the applicant. This will reduce time, effort and cost for applicants.

Next, we will permit partial acceptance for national trade mark applications. This is already a common practice in other major jurisdictions, and IPOS already has this practice for international trade mark applications.

Currently, for national trademark applications, applicants may apply to protect a trademark across multiple types of goods and services. If a trademark examiner has objections to the application in respect of only some of the goods or services listed by the applicant, these objections might hold up the entire application.

Clauses 43, 44, 46, 47, 52 and 53 of the Bill will amend the Trade Marks Act to allow IPOS to partially accept an application, allowing the trademark to be registered for those goods and services for which there were no objections in such cases.

We expect that the change to permit partial acceptance for national applications will benefit up to about 13% of these domestic applications. That is approximately 2,100 applications annually, saving applicants time, effort and costs.

Third, clause 51(b) changes the post-deadline relief measure for trademark applications.

Under the Trade Marks Act and Rules, trademark applications are treated as withdrawn if certain deadlines are missed.

In the six months after the deadline, applicants can request reinstatement of their applications.

This six-month window affects third parties who wish to apply for marks that are identical or similar to the applicant's, as they need to wait for the six-month period to lapse to have greater clarity about the outcome of their own application. And so, in that period, face uncertainty as to how to proceed in the meantime.

To address this situation, applicants will henceforth have two months to request for the continued processing of their lapsed applications, instead of six months to request for reinstatement. Continued processing preserves the application and should the applicant wish to continue with his application, expedites the processing of the application compared to the current approach of seeking reinstatement.

The shortened period after the missed deadline will incentivise applicants to quickly put their application in order. The shortened period will also reduce uncertainty for third parties who wish to apply for identical or similar marks. The US and New Zealand similarly provide for a period of two months for applicants to file such a request. These changes will not affect the majority of applicants who actively monitor applicable deadlines and act in a timely manner.

The final change in this category introduces an opposition mechanism to facilitate the correction of errors in IP applications or registrations, where the correction may affect the interests of third parties.

This change pertains to the Geographical Indications Act 2014, the Plant Varieties Protection Act, the Registered Designs Act and the Trade Marks Act.

Examples of corrections that can affect third parties include those relating to the particulars of the applicant or rights-holder, or that affect the priority details of an application or registration. IPOS receives about 40 such requests for corrections per year on average.

The Bill will amend the relevant Acts to give IPOS the discretion to publish requests for corrections, so that third parties are made aware of such correction requests and can assess whether they wish to oppose the corrections. Resolving such disputes between the applicant or rights-holder and third parties before accepting the corrections enhances the certainty of the information on the Registers.

Next, Members will recall I mentioned changes across three broad categories. The second category of changes seeks to improve operational efficiency.

Let me highlight four key amendments to IPOS' internal processes.

To begin with, we will improve the patent examination process. At present, if a patent examiner assesses that a patent application does not satisfy one or more of the requirements to be eligible for the grant of a patent, he or she must issue a written opinion setting out the objections.

Clause 10 changes this so that if an examiner's objections can be overcome with minor amendments to the specification of the patent application, examiners can then simply invite applicants to make those amendments within a shorter period of time. This will obviate the need to issue a written opinion, thereby reducing turnaround and processing times for part of the 5,000 substantive examination requests that IPOS expects to receive annually.

We will also streamline the patent examination review process to remove unnecessary work.

Currently, once a patent examiner has issued a report objecting to the grant of a patent, the applicant can request that the examiner's report be reviewed by filing written submissions and/or amendments to overcome the objections. Another examiner will then review both the original report and the applicant's responses. However, if the applicant files amendments to overcome all unresolved objections mentioned in the original report, that report is no longer relevant.

Clause 11 of the Bill therefore changes this so that if the applicant files such amendments, the original report need not be reviewed, and the reviewing examiner can then focus on the proposed amendments. This is more direct; it gets to the point. This will save time and effort for up to 800 patent applications per year.

Next, clauses 22 and 23 introduce a new cooperative mode of examination for applications for the protection of new plant varieties. At present, during the course of examination, IPOS may appoint external experts to conduct the relevant tests and examination or rely on existing examination reports issued by foreign examiners from approved countries. However, the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, of which Singapore is a party, also allows for examiners to rely on relevant tests conducted and submitted by the breeder or another person, organisation or entity acceptable to IPOS.

We will therefore introduce this option to provide applicants with more flexibility and to reduce turnaround and processing time for such applications.

The last change in this category lays the groundwork for future improvements to operational efficiency by shifting technical and operational provisions from primary to subsidiary legislation. Such provisions are common throughout several of our IP statutes, for example, the Plant Varieties Protection Act goes into detail on related information that IPOS must regularly publish, while the Patents Act goes into detail on the amount of time a patent grantee has to renew their patent after expiry.

Moving such technical and operational provisions to subsidiary legislation will allow IPOS to adjust and adapt to changing needs more quickly, more nimbly, since amendments to subsidiary legislation can be made more speedily.

The third broad category of changes that the Bill seeks to introduce are those that seek to clarify the law and to smoothen IPOS' administration of the IP prosecution process. There are three such changes in the Bill today and let me take Members through.

First, clause 17 of the Bill seeks to improve the public's access to patent documents.

IPOS had launched the Patents Open Dossier in 2017 to provide easier access to a wider range of patent documents. This allows other inventors and the public to better understand inventions for which patent protection is sought or had been granted in Singapore. The change introduced in clause 17 clarifies IPOS' ability to make such documents available to the public, even in the absence of any request for the documents.

Next, clause 7 amends the Patents Act to empower the Registrar to issue practice directions on the manner of the filing of a patent application, in addition to the manner prescribed in the subsidiary legislation.

Moving forward, IPOS intends to amend the rules made under the Patents Act to require sequence listings to be filed with patent applications, where applicable. The amendment in clause 7 would allow the Registrar to issue practice directions setting out the format in which these sequence listings are to be filed.

Sequence listings are listings of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences, which provide additional detail in patent applications, for instance, in biomedical or biotechnological inventions. Such detail can be useful for examiners and subsequent searchers alike. The law currently has no requirement for patent applications to include such sequence listings even when they might be relevant. Imposing this requirement in the rules and practice directions will strengthen the completeness of patent disclosures and make patent searches easier, more thorough, both for patent examiners and for the public.

Third, clause 41 will provide clarity on the period that an expired trademark will continue to be regarded as an "earlier trade mark".

Expired trademarks are currently regarded as earlier trademarks for a year after their expiry and also remain eligible for renewal or restoration during this period. Such expired trademarks continue to retain priority, potentially preventing the registration of other similar marks. However, trademark proprietors may have more than a year to renew or restore their expired marks in certain circumstances. For instance, when IPOS granted an extension of time as part of its COVID-19 relief measures.

The law is currently unclear as to whether such marks, which are still eligible for restoration or renewal after a year, will still continue to be regarded as "earlier trade marks".

Clause 41 will therefore amend the Trade Marks Act to clarify that expired trademarks will be considered "earlier trade marks" for as long as they remain eligible for renewal or restoration. This will ensure that trademark proprietors who are entitled to renew or restore their marks continue to enjoy the benefits of their registrations against later applications.

Sir, I have covered the three main categories of amendments to the Bill. Let me add that clause 55 also makes an administrative change to the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore Act to provide that any revenue from legislated financial penalties – namely, any fines or composition fines paid to IPOS – will go to the Consolidated Fund. This change will bring IPOS'. management of such monies in accordance with the best practices across the rest of the Government.

Mr Speaker Sir, Members will see that the Bill contains many different amendments across a variety of different IP related statutes. These reflect the continued and ongoing efforts of MinLaw and IPOS to review, to refresh and update, and improve the IP registration process in Singapore. This will support our businesses as they move towards the greater use of IA and IP both locally and globally.

If passed, we intend to implement the majority of the Bill by May 2022. The new cooperative mode of examination for plant variety protection applications, on the other hand, will be implemented later, after IPOS has finalised the procedural details. With that, Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

12.18 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Thank you, Sir. This Bill amends how intellectual property rights are registered in Singapore. This strengthens our position as a global IP hub and brings us closer to Singapore's IP Strategy 2030.

I am sure Minister Edwin Tong will be glad to know I have three quick fire points of clarification.

First, can Minister clarify when a Breeder’s test should be submitted when registering a new plant variety? The new section 18A of the Plant Varieties Protection Act phrases this as a voluntary option for applicants. This could create uncertainty whether or not to expend resources on the test. This is especially relevant as Breeder’s tests may sometimes take several planting seasons. Clarity will save applicants time and resources.

Second, will the Ministry clarify the principles for interpreting a disclaimer under the Registered Designs Act? The new section 30A only states that the rights are "restricted accordingly". This does not appear to consider that disclaimers may also expand the rights of a registered design. For example, can a disclaimer as to colour expand the protection to all designs of that type regardless of colour?

Lastly, our IP Strategy 2030 can play an important role in protecting the environment and fighting climate change. Innovation and technology has the potential to help us lead more sustainable lives and adapt to a changing world. I would like to ask the Minister to consider updating our IP strategy to include a focus on promoting sustainability innovation in Singapore.

Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

12.20 pm

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim (Sengkang): Sir, the proposed changes to the Bill will codify simplifications and streamline processes associated with intellectual property procedures. These changes relate to a wide range of IP classes, including patents, registered designs, trade marks, geographical indications and plant varieties protection.

While I support the Bill, I will offer some additional points for consideration. My remarks pertain to three areas, just like the other Member, but unfortunately for Minister Edwin Tong, I am both more verbose and more detailed.

I will talk about drawing a distinction, first, between protection afforded to trade marks and geographical indications vis a vis other classes of intellectual property. Second, I will talk about the application of information technology and digitalisation to IP processes and third, I will discuss a notion of a unified act for all IP classes.

In my prior speech on how intellectual property confers monopoly rights on ideas during the debate on the Copyright Act of 2021, I had spoken about the tradeoffs between granting IP protection and innovative activity and concluded that we should be sensitive to inherent tradeoffs between our pursuit of pre-eminence as a global IP hub and sanctioning potential abuse and overreach via rent seeking behaviour.

The moral of that argument applies with special force for the case of trade marks along with – to a lesser degree – geographical indications. Legally enforceable trade marks do not generally promote competitive innovative activity, unlike copyrights or patents. They do not generally enrich the public domain, serving as the germ of subsequent research ideas. Their function is largely market oriented to grant its owners a right to preclude others from the use of a particular established brand or symbol. More fundamentally, trade marks have a tendency to favour the business interests of incumbents against those of new entrants and challengers to the status quo. The public policy premise for their existence is therefore correspondingly weaker, and we should, in my view, be more guarded in our treatment of trade marks in our corpus of IP law.

The amendments in part 5 of the Bill on trade marks should therefore be scrutinised in this light. In particular, while the partial refusal mechanism is certainly more efficient from the perspective of expediting legal processes involved, institutional frictions may yet serve a purpose to inhibit excessively frivolous trade mark applications. The analogy here is how a small transactions tax, financial transactions tax, could throw "sand in the wheels" and discourage excesses from speculative trading in financial markets.

Sir, I understand that this approach is already in place in international jurisdictions and is consistent with the designations in the Madrid Protocol. Still, I think it is fair to ask whether as a small open economy with a strong interest in promoting indigenous innovative capacity, whether we should be granting IP rights that could be counterproductive to advancing that endeavour. More pointedly, are we approving trade marks on a partial basis? Excuse me – are we approving trade marks? Are we granting the registrar the right to approve trade marks on a partial basis instead of the existing default of requiring, a full resubmission, which may well be favourable for fostering a less inhibitive innovation climate? Put another way, do we wish to make it easier for applicants to quickly secure IP rights that could then be turned around and used toward profiteering. One only need to look at trade mark trolls worldwide such as Paris Hilton attempting to trade mark "That's hot!", or Donald Trump seeking to trade mark "You're fired!". Thankfully, they were not successful in these applications.

While not explicit in the Bill, there are also two aspects of information technology and digitisation that I believe merits some additional comment. In the initial public consultation document issued in August last year, IPOS explained that they have begun the deployment of artificial intelligence technologies for IP administration. In particular and relevant to this Bill, one use of AI was in assessing extension of time requests in response to correspondence from the registrar. The Bill itself proposes that the stipulated time periods be shifted from the Act to the rules across multiple IP classes as captured in amendments to section 35, excuse me, 36 of the Patents Act, section 19 of the Trade Marks Act, section 21 of the Registered Designs Act and section 51 of the Geographical Indications Act.

For instance, the two-month period for filing notices of opposition to propose corrections for patent applications would now apply. Presumably, this was inspired as Minister Edwin Tong discussed earlier on by the application of AI to ascertain whether such a two-month duration is reasonable, or at least consistent with the historical data with which IPOS has available.

Mr Speaker, it is worth noting that this power and promise of AI is an enticing one, but the strength of the technology should not be overwrought. The strength of big data rests on, well, access to data that are genuinely large. Some rules of thumb are data in excess of one terabyte or training data for machine learning that is in the order of millions of observations. While I do not have the visibility on the number of IP applications IPOS has in its internal databases, I would venture that these fall far short of typical applications of machine learning.

A perhaps more pernicious concern is that unsurprisingly, AI technology is only as intelligent as the historical data on which it trains. This has led to arguments by some data scientists who point out that callous applications of AI could exacerbate existing societal fault lines and entrench persistent inequalities. At the very least, AI prediction should be subject to scrutiny, not just by standards of fairness and transparency, but also whether historical decisions are being fed into the algorithm are actually truly just or optimal.

Amendments to section 108 of the Patents Act also touch on another element of information technology, namely, the requirement that published patents be made available to public. I believe that these amendments supplement existing open data practices, notably, the launch of the Patents Open Dossier (POD) database in June 2017, something that Minister Edwin Tong also spoke on earlier.

Mr Speaker, to this end, I went ahead and explored the e-Services portal myself. While such data access is surely welcome, I will only note that the existing design of the POD requires that the user know the parameters for a given IP such as the filing date, applicant name or application number. These are certainly useful for reverse lookups but is nevertheless relatively constrained, especially when engaged in the free form searches one typically performs in exploratory research. To this end, I wonder if the Minister will be willing to share their efforts by IPOS to further develop the database to allow for, say keyword or categorical searches so as to make it more useful.

I shall close with a metapoint. The substantial amendments tabled in this Bill span five existing Acts and exclude the Copyright Act, which was debated last year. Such multiple sources could lead to a proliferation of related laws that run the risk of potential conflict or making searches for IP relevant legislation comparatively less user-friendly. May I ask whether the Ministry has considered consolidating the various IP related laws into a single omnibus Act? The only justification I can think of for not doing so is the need to remain faithful to various international treaties to which we are party. Such consolidation, however, would not only make it easier for IP and legal professionals to reference laws related to IP while also remaining consistent with the ethos and body in the Statute Law Reform Act, which was passed last year in this House.

Mr Speaker: Minister Edwin Tong.

12.30 pm

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Speaker, I thank both Mr Ng as well Assoc Prof Jamus for their support of the Bill.

Let me try and deal with it, in Mr Ng's words "quick fire fashion" response. Mr Ng asked about a breeder's test and also about the principles that will apply for interpreting a disclaimer. I will deal with these two points first and touch on sustainability issue later on.

The new section 18A of the Plant Varieties Protection Act introduces an additional mode of examination. This involves the breeder or another person, organisation or entity acceptable to the Registrar of Plant Varieties in IPOS, or the Examiner. This is known as the breeder’s test which Mr Ng referred to a moment ago. Mr Ng asked when a breeder’s test should be done, so that applicants would be clear when it would be necessary for them to expend the time and resources to do the test.

Sir, to qualify for plant variety protection, a candidate plant variety must, among other criteria, be: (a) distinct; (b) uniform; and (c) stable. These are known as the "DUS criteria". Whether a candidate plant variety meets the DUS criteria is established at examination.

Currently, the Registrar may either appoint external experts, as I mentioned earlier, as examiners to conduct examination, including the tests for the DUS criteria, or utilise an existing examination report with results on the DUS criteria, issued by a foreign examiner from an approved country.

The new breeder’s test mode will give the applicant another manner in which the application can proceed. So, breeders can now opt to perform the required tests by themselves, or to directly engage someone else recognised by the Registrar or the appointed Examiner to do so, before submitting the results to IPOS. IPOS will conduct further consultations with stakeholders on procedural details before implementing the new breeder’s test.

The second item for clarification by Mr Ng relates to the new section 30A of the Registered Designs Act (RDA). This relates to the disclaiming of rights in relation to a specified feature of a design. Mr Ng sought clarification on the principles for interpreting a disclaimer under the RDA.

IPOS’ approach to disclaimers under the RDA takes reference from our trade marks regime, and adopts the same intent and understanding as to the effect of disclaimers.

When applying for registered design protection, an applicant may identify what they wish to protect by providing a representation and description of their design, and if necessary, by clarifying which parts of that design they are not seeking protection for.

The intent in providing applicants with the option to make disclaimers is so that applicants can specify which features of a design they do not wish to protect.

So, the protection conferred on a registered design will include the features that have been described and represented, whilst excluding any features that have been disclaimed. Therefore, a disclaimer should only reduce the features that are protected under the registered design.

Next, let me turn to Mr Ng's third point on Singapore’s IP strategy and how it can support sustainability innovation and contribute to our fight against climate change.

Sir, climate change is not only an urgent global issue. It is an existential challenge for us in Singapore as a small island. We must get creative and pioneer technological and policy solutions for sustainable development.

Intellectual property (IP) is a useful tool to drive and support innovation, including innovation in clean technologies.

What we can do, and have done, is to help accelerate the pace of innovation by facilitating: (a) better support from our IP regime for the development and use of emerging technologies; (b) technology transfer from the public sector to the private sector to expedite the introduction of new innovations to the market; and finally, (c) faster protection to benefit innovators working in fields with short technology life cycles.

In my opening speech, I mentioned the Singapore IP Strategy 2030, or SIPS 2030. Part of our commitment under SIPS is to support technological advances through policy reviews. So, for instance, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim mentioned the new rules that were introduced last November as part of the Copyright Act 2021 to clearly permit computational data analysis. Future reviews will continue to take into account emerging clean technologies and, certainly, future reviews on a broader point will also take into account what Assoc Prof Jamus Lim said about AI and machine learning. All of these are developments that continue, they evolve and, over time, new changes will mean that we might need new rules. So, we are committed to ensuring that our regime, as a whole, given that we are dealing with a high technology, cutting edge space, we will have to continue to evolve to meet these changes.

Another commitment under SIPS is to increase enterprise access to publicly funded IP, including for innovations that can benefit our healthcare and sustainability efforts.

Unlocking the fruits of public sector research will benefit our businesses, even as their work in bringing research to the market helps realise the potential of these innovations.

And, finally, the Singapore IP Fast Track programme, introduced in 2020, expedites the processing of IP applications – whether they are patents, trade marks and registered designs, they can move from application to protection in as fast as six, three and one month respectively. That is very quick by international standards. And the sooner and quicker we are able to do this, the more confidence an innovator will have in the system that it will be able to register and protect its inventions.

This reduction in the time needed to acquire protection benefits innovation in fields with short product life cycles in particular and facilitates the rapid commercialisation and proliferation of new technologies which may include green technologies.

Sir, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim also spoke about how we might look at and review the IP regime and how we might want to be more circumscribed and, as I heard him say, reduce the scope and breadth of trade mark applications and recognition because of the need to ensure that there will be more competition for the incumbent's space.

Sir, the point really is quite the converse. A strong IP system that recognises invention, protects innovation is one that will promote innovation and promote this space. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim spoke about having more competition for the incumbents, but I will venture to suggest that if we had no IP protection or less IP protection, then in fact the space for the incumbents to be in Singapore will be far less ideal. And you will find that incumbents will take their innovations and inventions elsewhere where they can apply for and obtain trade mark protection.

In terms of competition, I would say that competing goods can actually be sold. There is no bar to that. It is just that you cannot misrepresent the basis or the source of your product. So, competition is not stifled but innovation is protected under our current regime.

Sir, having said all that, the point I made earlier about constantly evolving, constantly having to adapt and react to changes in this space remains true. We will not rest on our laurels. We will continue to ensure that our IP system fosters innovation, promotes commercialisation – and that includes in spaces like in green technologies – and helps new ideas, new innovators realise their potential.

Once again, I thank Members who have spoken – both Mr Ng and Prof Jamus – and support the Bill.

In summary, this Bill is part of our process, our continual process and efforts to ensure that our IP office and our regime and system that we use, and very often it is not just about the laws but about how they are implemented in practice, what is the procedure like, how quick can we do it, how fast is the turnaround time and how efficient can we deal with applications. All of this is part of our efforts to ensure an efficient and a business-friendly environment. This in turn helps our companies, innovators and inventors protect their IP and turn their innovations into a competitive edge and advantage.

MinLaw and IPOS will continue to work to review, update and improve Singapore’s IP regime. Mr Speaker, with that, I beg to move.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

12.39 pm

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim: Mr Speaker, just a very quick point of clarification in what I said about intellectual property with respect to trade marks. I wish to clarify that, in fact, I feel that there is a distinction between trade marks as a class versus other classes of intellectual property for the purposes of promoting innovations. So, here my question is more whether Minister Tong feels that trade marks should be treated somewhat differently, given that it tends to be conferred more for existing incumbents, as opposed to other classes of intellectual property that is often conferred to new entrants?

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I had understood Assoc Prof Jamus Lim's point. There are different classes and that is precisely why we have dealt with it in different pieces of legislation, recognising that there are different intrinsic qualities that go behind each of these classes.

For trade marks, in particular, the point is a broader one. If we try to reduce the space or the recognition of trade marks or curtail them or compromise them, then the knock-on impact on innovators and inventors wanting to bring their products into Singapore to obtain that protection will be in turn affected. And that was the broader point that I made – about sounding a caution about trying to restrict the application of trade marks for these innovations.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.