One and the same High Court judge said “no” and “yes” in two different cases about Intellectual Property (IP). This is why I believe that this makes a viable example.
For Patents, “at least pursuasive”
In the following decision, the High Court notes that the decisions of the EPO and its Boards of Appeal, although not binding in Singapore, were of some persuasive value since the SG Patents Act was based on the UK Patents Act, which in turn implemented the UK’s obligations under the EPC.
For Trademarks, “not in the form of an AEIC”
Although the SG Trademark Act was based on the UK Patents Act, which in turn implemented the UK’s obligations under the corresponding EU directive, the High Court did not find the decisions of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) as outlined in an Expert Witness Statement persuasive.