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 […]
Tag: likelihood of confusion
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 […]
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 […]