By Maisarah Afifah

Few stories capture the collision between family, business and branding as vividly as Chua Beng Hock v FM Skincare Pte Ltd [2025] SGIPOS 2. It is a tale of two brothers, Adam (the Initiator) and Chris, whose shared a belief that beauty is everyone’s right thus, founded Face of Man, a salon where skincare and grooming were not reserved only for femininity, but a celebration of self-care for men. What began as entrepreneurial kinship evolved into a complex inquiry into goodwill, joint ownership of a brand and the limits of trademark law when personal history becomes intertwined with commercial identity.

The Rise of a Brand Built on Brotherhood

The Face of Man salonwas first operated in the Roxy Square in Singapore by Adam in 1986, with his associate, Chia. His brother, Chris only came into the picture in 1994 and the partnership expanded, eventually growing into a network of franchised outlets operated through multiple business vehicles, including RX International and later FM Skincare Pte Ltd, the Respondent company.

As the business expanded, professional designers were engaged, new logos were developed and the brand identity evolved into the sleek “faceofman” mark we see today. Yet, as with many partnerships, success brought strain.

Bad Faith Allegations: High Bar, Unmet

Adam viewed the Respondent’s application and registration of the Subject Marks as an attempt to monopolise the brand. He believed Face of Man was his story—an extension of himself, woven by years of hands-on toil. The essence of the brand ties irrevocably to him.

But the Respondent stood their ground. This was no act of deception, no plot to erase history. The Respondent argued that it had long controlled and expanded the Face of Man business through franchising and direct operations. The Registrar agreed and found no evidence of ill intent. The law did not see bad faith, only two men bound by a partnership, locked within their rights as partners. The legal test, combining subjective knowledge with an objective standard of fair commercial behaviour, was simply not met.

Passing Off and the Question of Goodwill

Adam unfolded into the realm of passing off, the common law tort which protects unregistered trademarks. Three elements must be satisfied. First is goodwill, which was not disputed. Yet the question lingered: “Who truly owned that goodwill?”. The evidence told a shared story. Marketing materials, franchise publications, interviews and public-facing narratives consistently portrayed Face of Man as the joint creation of Adam and Chris. The public perceived both brothers as the driving forces behind the brand. The bond was deep, thus neither could lay sole claim. On this basis, the Registrar found that goodwill was jointly owned, not exclusively Adam’s.

Next comes misrepresentation, the shadow that loomed when one sought to mislead. But misrepresentation only follows where goodwill exists, and in this case, the Subject Marks had not sprung from deception, hence, there was no misrepresentation. Lastly comes the element of damage. As misrepresentation was not proven to have been inflicted or resulted in lost sales, this third element is then not fulfilled.

The above finding also had profound consequences. Under the doctrine articulated in Gromax, a co-owner of goodwill cannot establish passing off against another co-owner. Without exclusive goodwill, Adam’s passing off claim collapsed at the threshold.

Other Grounds Fall Away: Copyright and Well-Known Marks

Adam also alleged copyright infringement, claiming ownership of earlier Face of Man logos. However, evidence showed that the logos were created by an external design studio engaged during the franchising phase. Without proof of ownership, the copyright claim failed. The argument that Face of Man was a well-known trademark similarly fell short. While reputable, the evidence did not meet the statutory threshold required for enhanced protection.

A Legacy Shared, Not Seized

And so, the city held its breath, waiting for verdict wondering who would emerge as the true face of the brand. The conclusion was made abundantly clear. Bound by history and shaped by joint effort, the Face of Man marks did not belong to one brother alone. The tale did not end in conquest, but in recognition, a legacy shared rather than seized. This was not a tale of trickery or distortion, but of co-creation and consequence. Where goodwill is shared, exclusivity cannot be assumed. The opposition and invalidation, hence were dismissed. This case is an elegant study in how brands shaped by collective effort resist being reclaimed by a single individual, even one deeply tied to its origins. When a brand is built together, it remains, at least in the eyes of the law, a shared face.