In 2026, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court found that Molly Tea, a fast-growing jasmine tea chain, had infringed several of Louis Vuitton’s registered floral device marks. The court ordered Molly Tea to cease using the logo, publish corrective statements, and pay RMB 10.3 million in damages. Molly Tea has indicated that it will appeal, meaning […]
Tag: likelihood of confusion
Reframing similarity infringement in Malaysia
The Malaysia High Court’s recent decision in The Polo/Lauren Company, L.P. v RCB Marketing Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 4617 marks an important development in Malaysian trademark jurisprudence, particularly in its treatment of similarity infringement under Section 54(2)(b) of the Trademarks Act 2019, wherein the court demonstrates a clear preference for a structured, step-by-step approach – a marked […]
SINGAPORE: A Hairy Situation
Genpulse Pte Ltd (applicant), a Singapore company that sells AI-driven dermatological and trichological (hair-related) solutions, applied to register a composite mark in Class 44, bearing application number 40202401479U on January 22, 2024. See the mark below: Cosmetic Warriors Limited (opponent), part of the LUSH Group, a global skincare and cosmetics business, and the proprietor of […]
Case summary of Symphony Holdings Limited v Skins IP Limited [2025] SGIPOS 3
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 […]
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, […]