This recent Intellectual Property Office of Singapore decision delved into the registrability of an AMAZON-formative mark sought to be registered by a Singapore-incorporated company. Background Survivalverse Pte Ltd (the applicant) is a Singapore-incorporated company that principally develops videogames and software, which applied to register the mark (the application mark) in Classes 9 and 41, to be […]
R We Similar?
A recent Intellectual Property Office of Singapore decision in the matter of Google LLC v. Green Radar (Singapore) Pte Ltd delved into the complexities of trademark law in Singapore while highlighting the crucial balance between protecting one’s brand and promoting market competition. Background Green Radar (Singapore) Pte Ltd. (the applicant) is a Singapore-incorporated company and […]
Classical trinity of passing off analyzed
The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) decision in ZERODENSITY YAZILIM ANONIM SIRKETI v. Novel Brands USA LLC clarifies the law of passing off in Singapore and discusses the “classical trinity” test in establishing passing off. Background Novel Brands USA LLC (the applicant) is a company incorporated in Delaware, United States. The applicant had designated […]
SINGAPORE: Prosecco, Geographical Indications, and the Likelihood of Deception
In this decision, the Court of Appeal held that sufficient evidence must be shown to demonstrate that a geographical indication (GI) was likely to deceive the Singaporean buyer as to the source of the product that the GI denotes, so as to render that GI unregistrable. The decision was issued on November 8, 2023. The appellant […]
Dr. Who Water Works Pte Ltd and others v Dr. Who (M) Sdn Bhd and others
When IP disputes arise, it is important for the disputing parties to honour settlement agreements. Breaching a settlement agreement may bring about liability under IP law frameworks. Dramatis personae This case involved parties in the business of bottling water. Dr. Who Waterworks Pte Ltd (the first claimant), a Singapore-incorporated company, was run by a Mr. […]
Singapore – Substantiation of Allegation of Bad Faith May Entitle Tribunal to Declare A Trademark Invalid
Swiss Company Vetements Group AG (the “Applicant”) sought to invalidate the following mark which had been registered in Singapore by a Chinese Company, Xiamen Vetements Brand Management Co., Ltd (the “Registered Proprietor”) for clothing in Class 25. While the Registered Proprietor filed its response to the invalidation application, it did not file its supporting evidence in […]
SINGAPORE: Opposition Fails Due to Lack of Evidence of Bad Faith
This decision, which was published on January 26, 2023, shows that to cross the high threshold of proving a claim in bad faith, an opponent must properly substantiate its arguments. Chuan Hong Seng Pte Ltd (applicant) is a company involved in the importation, distribution, and wholesaling of food products. Yap Fei Fei (opponent) was the […]
SINGAPORE: Visual Similarity Wins High Court Judgment for Twitter
This decision from the High Court in Singapore, issued on November 23, 2022, illustrates the delicate balance a tribunal must undertake when assessing the similarity between two device marks. The High Court in Singapore set out the proper approach to understanding and applying the concepts of distinctiveness, and visual and conceptual similarity. VV Technology appealed […]
SINGAPORE: No Use Crying Over Spilled Milk
This decision recaps and applies the case law surrounding the marks-similarity enquiry. A2 filed a consolidated opposition against Nestlé’s trademarks (Trademark Application No. 40201926155W) and (Trademark Application No. 40201907176S) (collectively, the Application Marks), relying on A2’s own registered trademarks for . A2 unsuccessfully argued that a likelihood of confusion would arise between A2’s trademarks and the Application Marks, […]
SINGAPORE: TATA SONS Loses Trademark Challenge for Lack of Confusion
When the proprietor of an earlier trademark has established goodwill in a different industry from a competing trademark, it is less likely that confusion can be established under the Trade Marks Act, that is, that using a newer trademark would indicate a connection between the applicant’s goods and services and those of the earlier mark’s […]