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 […]
Tag: likelihood of confusion
An Amazon discovery
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 […]
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. […]
Fair Isaac Corporation v. LAC Co., Ltd [2022] SGIPOS 19
What happens when a later trademark incorporates an earlier one, especially when many other trademarks on the register incorporate the earlier trademark? This decision explores the applicable principles surrounding trademark oppositions involving such facts. The applicant, a major international cybersecurity corporation, sought to register the application mark . The opponent, whose goods and services included […]
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, […]
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 […]