I. Background

Symphony Holdings Limited v. Skins IP Limited [2025] SGIPOS 3 concerned an opposition by Symphony Holdings Limited (the “Opponent”) against an application by Skins IP Limited (the “Applicant”) to register the following word trade mark, “SKINS”, (the “Subject Mark”) in Singapore.

The Opponent, a Hong Kong-based sports-branding company, opposed the application based on its earlier"   " mark registered in Classes 10, 18, 25, and 28 (the “Earlier Mark”), citing various grounds under the  Trade Marks Act 1998 (“TMA”), including bad faith.

II. Bad faith ground

In support of its bad faith argument, the Opponent submitted that it had acquired the Earlier Mark from Skins International Trading AG (“SITAG”), which had gone bankrupt. Prior to the acquisition, SITAG had distributed goods bearing the Earlier Mark through British retailer, Sports Direct Holdings Limited (“Sports Direct”). Both the Applicant and Sports Direct were ultimately owned by Frasers Group plc, and the Applicant’s directors were also directors of Sports Direct. There were also links between Frasers Group plc and Four Marketing Limited (“Four Marketing”), a company that had unsuccessfully bid for SITAG’s IP portfolio.

The Applicant was incorporated just three weeks after Four Marketing's failed bid and immediately began filing trade mark applications for "SKINS" globally, including in Singapore. Since its incorporation, the Applicant had remained dormant and had taken no commercial steps to legitimise or establish a lawful right to the Earlier Mark.

Principal Assistant Registrar Tan Mei Lin (“PAR”) reasoned that the Applicant knew or must have known of the Opponent’s ownership of the Earlier Mark, given the corporate links and prior dealings. The Applicant failed to rebut these allegations or explain its choice of mark, nor did it offer any justification showing alignment with accepted standards of ethical behaviour or honest commercial and business practices.

The PAR applied the legal framework for bad faith, as set out in Valentino Globe BV v. Pacific Rim Industries Inc [2010] 2 SLR 1203, which includes both subjective (viz, what the particular applicant knows) and objective elements (viz, what ordinary persons adopting proper standards would think). The subjective element was satisfied due to the Applicant’s knowledge of the Opponent’s rights, and the objective element was met as the Applicant's conduct - attempting to register an identical mark without justification - was deemed commercially unacceptable. Notably, the Applicant offered no explanation for adopting “SKINS” as its company’s name and trade mark and failed to respond to the allegations levelled at it.

The PAR found that the ground of opposition under section 7(6) of the TMA succeeded.

III. Other grounds

While it was unnecessary for the PAR to decide the remaining opposition grounds (as success on one ground is sufficient to refuse registration), she expressed preliminary doubts regarding the similarity of the parties’ goods and the strength of the Opponent's evidence on goodwill in Singapore as well as the likelihood of confusion.

IV. Conclusion

The decision highlights the significance of good faith in trade mark applications, particularly where there is a history of commercial dealings between parties. Applicants seeking to rebut a presumption of bad faith should be prepared to produce clear, positive evidence demonstrating a genuine intention to use the applied-for mark in good faith.