Strict Adherence to Deadlines: The Case of Perfect Supply Chain Co. Limited

This Registry decision issued on 27 November 2025 serves as a critical reminder for trade mark agents regarding the consequences of missing procedural deadlines. This interlocutory decision, rendered by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS), involved an attempt by Perfect Supply Chain Co. Limited (“Perfect Supply”) to secure an out-of-time extension to file counter-statements against Amer Sports Canada Inc. (“Amer Sports”).

Background and Procedural History

On 26 February 2025, Amer Sports filed for declarations of invalidity and notices of opposition against five specific trademarks held by Perfect Supply (Trade Mark Nos. 40202403556T, 40202403557X, 40202320807R, 40202422355V, and 40202422356R). Perfect Supply faced deadlines of 26 April 2025 and 12 May 2025 to file its counter-statements.

Perfect Supply missed these deadlines and failed to request extensions in a timely manner. Consequently, the Registrar notified the parties in May 2025 that two registrations were invalidated and two applications were treated as withdrawn. It was not until July 2025—nearly two months after the final deadline—that Perfect Supply sought leave to file the missing documents.

The Legal Issue: Discretion and Irregularity

The core issue was whether Perfect Supply’s out-of-time application for an extension could be allowed under Rule 83 of the Trade Marks Rules, which permits the Registrar to correct an “irregularity in procedure”.

The decision clarifies that while the Registrar has the discretion to excuse procedural failures, this is a balancing exercise. The court must weigh the specific facts against the public interest of certainty and the need for the expeditious disposal of disputes. Unlike court proceedings, where missing a deadline can permanently bar a right, registry proceedings are often less severe because parties can usually re-file applications. Therefore, the Registrar typically takes a circumspect stance and requires exceptional circumstances to deviate from prescribed time limits.

The Registrar’s Reasoning

The Registrar ultimately refused the extension based on several factors:

  • Significant Delay: The delay was 51 to 60 days, which the Registrar deemed significant. Crucially, this delay pushed the request beyond the 4-month statutory maximum typically allowed for such extensions.
  • Insufficient Explanation for Solicitor Error: Perfect Supply attributed the delay to a clerical error by its solicitor, suggesting the solicitor may have been suffering from mental health difficulties. However, the Registrar noted that no evidence (such as medical reports) was provided, nor was there an explanation of how these difficulties led to the specific failure. The decision emphasizes that a solicitor’s bona fide mistake or “mere assertion of oversight” is generally insufficient without extenuating circumstances.
  • Prejudice to the Opposing Party: Amer Sports demonstrated that it had already relied on the invalidations and withdrawals to file court papers in Singapore and Hong Kong. Granting the extension would cause significant detriment to Amer Sports’ global legal strategy.

Conclusion of the Case

The Registrar concluded that Perfect Supply failed to provide a good and sufficient reason to justify the deviation from the rules. The application for an extension was refused, and Amer Sports was awarded costs.

Useful Key Takeaways

  • Solicitor Error is Rarely an Excuse: A simple clerical error or a “bona fide mistake” by the trade mark agent is rarely considered an exceptional circumstance. High standards of accountability and responsibility are required in IP filing representation.
  • The “Good and Sufficient Reason” Standard: When requesting an extension, you must provide a detailed explanation. Mere assertions of oversight are insufficient; any claims of mitigating factors (like health issues) must be backed by concrete evidence.
  • Be Mindful of the Statutory Maximum: While the Registrar has the power to extend time, exceeding the 4-month statutory maximum makes success significantly less likely.
  • Impact on Third Parties Matters: Courts will always consider whether an extension causes prejudice or detriment to the other party, especially if that party has already taken further legal action based on the missed deadline.