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, […]
Tag: likelihood of confusion
Sociedad Anonima Damm v Hijos De Rivera, S.A. [2022] SGIPOS 6
The Applicant, Hijos de Rivera, S.A. and the Opponent, Sociedad Anonima Damm are beer producers based in Spain. Both parties co-exist in Spain, Europe and UK, but as they grew beyond those territories they began to get embroiled in disputes. The Opponent registered its word mark “ESTRELLA DAMM” (“Registered Mark”) in Singapore in 2011, beginning […]
Twitter, Inc. v. V V Technology Pte Ltd [2022] SGIPOS 4
A recent decision shows the importance of consumer perception of economic linkages to the likelihood of confusion inquiry. VV Technology Pte Ltd (the applicant) had already registered its mark for goods and services under other classes that overlapped with the opponent’s mark. The applicant then sought to register its mark under Class 42 for several services […]
SINGAPORE: Registrar Rejects Daimler’s Similarity and Passing-Off Claims
In a decision of February 9, 2022, Daimler AG (opponent) failed in its opposition action against Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd (applicant) on grounds of similarity and passing off. The opponent lost principally due to a lack of evidence of use of its mark as registered and, thereby, lack of goodwill in its mark. This […]
SINGAPORE: An Entirely Different Beast
A recent opposition by Monster Energy Company (the opponent) against a trademark application filed by Health and Happiness (H&H) Hong Kong Limited (the applicant) is one of the very rare instances whereby the opponent relied on its earlier trademarks for goods to oppose an application for services. The applicant applied to register NOISY BEAST in […]
Rolex S.A. v. FMTM Distribution Ltd [2020] SGIPOS 6
FMTM Distribution Ltd (the applicant) is a company selling high-end luxury watches. The applicant applied to protect the trademark “MARINER” (the application mark) in Singapore on February 5, 2016, under Trade Mark Application No. 40201602064R in Class 14. Rolex S.A. (the opponent) is a watchmaker established in 1905, based in Geneva, Switzerland. The opponent has […]
Singapore: A-Star Education Discovery Camps Pte. Ltd. v. Discovery Communications, LLC
In a decision billed by the hearing registrar as a “David and Goliath clash”, Discovery Communications, LLC (“Opponent”), a corporate media giant of “Discovery Channel” fame, brought opposition proceedings against the application of A-Star-Education Discovery Camps Pte. Ltd. (“Applicant”) to register the mark “ ” (the “Application Mark”) (Singapore Trade Mark No. 40201714407Q). The Principal […]
Digi mark application fails in Singapore: Teraoka Seiko Co., Ltd v. Digi International Inc. [2020] SGIPOS 1
Digi International Inc. (“the Applicant”) is an American Industrial Internet of Things technology company headquartered in the United States of America founded in 1985. The Applicant applied to protect the trade mark: (“the Application Mark”) in Singapore on 3 March 2016 under International Registration No. 1326111 (TradeMark No. 40201700142X) in Classes 9, 38 and 42. […]
Highlights of Changes to the Malaysian Trade Marks Act
We are excited to share with you the highlights of the changes to the Malaysian Trade Marks Act (“Amended TMA”) which is currently tabled for its third and final reading before the Malaysian Parliament when it sits in October 2019. The salient features of the Amended TMA are as follows: 1. Accession to the Madrid […]