High Court rejects bid to bring ST Engineering unit into trademark infringement suit over RSAF aircraft parts

[SINGAPORE] The High Court has rejected a wholesale trader’s attempt to bring ST Engineering Aerospace Systems (Steas) into a trademark infringement suit over allegedly counterfeit components supplied for use in Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) aircraft.

Singapore-based United Shipping Services (USS) served a third-party notice on Steas on Dec 15 last year, seeking a contribution or to hold it jointly responsible for the alleged trademark infringement if USS was found liable.

USS argued that Steas was a joint tortfeasor – meaning that it would share legal responsibility for the alleged wrongdoing if infringement was established – in its ongoing suit with US-headquartered Timken, which manufactures engineered bearings and industrial motion products.

However, Assistant Registrar (AR) Gerome Goh wrote in his judgment released on Wednesday (Aug 5) that USS’ claims were “manifestly groundless”.

He struck out its third-party notice and dismissed the third-party proceedings, ordering USS to pay Steas S$15,000 in costs and disbursements.

Background on the case

Steas added USS to its list of approved vendors on Jan 18, 2024, after a quality survey in which USS said Timken had been its “approving authority/principal” since 2020 and that its Timken certificate would be renewed in 2024.

Steas subsequently made 23 purchase orders from USS for bearings to be used in RSAF aircraft between January and October that year.

Questions over the bearings’ authenticity arose in March 2024, when Steas found that some did not meet the required specifications.

USS attributed the differences to a design change by Timken and later produced a letter purportedly from the US manufacturer explaining the change.

SEE ALSO

Ex-Sakae director Ong Siew Kwee handed 10.5-year jail term for misappropriating S$15.8 million, lying in court

In November that year, Steas sent four bearings to Timken for verification. Timken found them to be counterfeit and the accompanying documents inauthentic, while a subsequent review of other samples found that most were counterfeit.

Timken sued USS on Nov 17, 2025, alleging that the trader had infringed its trademarks by importing and selling counterfeit bearings to Steas and by providing Steas with falsified certificates bearing Timken’s trademarks.

USS pleaded that it had bought the bearings from Noks International Group and China North International Trade Group, and denied generating Timken’s trademarks on the certificates, saying it merely passed on documents received from the suppliers.

The third-party proceedings

USS brought Steas into the case through third-party proceedings on Dec 15, 2025, arguing that the ST Engineering unit should contribute to any damages or share responsibility if infringement was established.

It alleged that Steas had failed to ensure the installed bearings were genuine and had represented them as authentic Timken products.

Steas sought to strike out the proceedings, arguing that USS had not shown that both companies were liable to Timken for the same damage, or that Steas had induced the alleged infringement.

USS countered that a party which procures or induces another to commit a civil wrong can be held jointly responsible.

However, AR Goh found that the mere contractual relationship between the companies did not show that Steas had encouraged USS to supply counterfeit bearings.

USS had also relied on Steas’ obligations as an aircraft maintenance company to ensure that installed parts were genuine and compliant.

But AR Goh said any breach of those obligations would, at most, create separate liability to the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore; it did not show that Steas had induced USS to infringe Timken’s trademarks.

USS had also argued that Steas effectively represented the bearings as genuine by installing them and not raising concerns earlier. But AR Goh found that this did not show Steas had persuaded or influenced USS to supply the allegedly counterfeit bearings.

Even if Steas’ conduct amounted to a representation that the bearings were genuine, he said it “fell far short” of establishing that Steas had induced USS to infringe Timken’s trademarks.

He also found it “rather odd” for USS to make this argument, given that USS had supplied the bearings and warranted that it would not infringe any trademarks.

AR Goh ultimately found that USS’ claims against Steas disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and struck out the third-party notice and dismissed the proceedings.