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 […]

Swatch AG v. Apple Inc.

This decision serves as a reminder that when opposing a trademark on bad faith, opponents and their lawyers should remain disciplined in crafting pleadings and submissions. Swatch opposed the registration of the word mark “THINK DIFFERENT” (application mark), which Apple applied for on September 12, 2018, in Class 9, alleging that Apple applied for the […]

SINGAPORE: Registrar Is Unconvinced by Similarity and Bad-Faith Allegations

This decision shows that a high threshold of proof is required to be successful in trademark similarity and bad-faith allegations. Despite two competing marks sharing the same word, stylistic and emphatic differences can render them dissimilar. Even in those circumstances, sufficient distinction between those marks remains commercially acceptable and can rebut an allegation of bad […]

Singapore: Dispute over trademark rights to famous “Eng’s” noodle shop decided in favour of late founder’s heirs

A June 2022 decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) provided a first instance ruling for a trademark dispute pertaining to the name of a famous noodle shop in Singapore. The IPOS adjudicator ruled that the late noodle shop operator’s children had a right to register trademarks pertaining to the name of their […]

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 […]

Daimler AG v. Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.

The case concerns an opposition in Singapore by Daimler AG (the opponent) to a trademark application by Viva Mobile Communication Co. (the applicant) to register (the application mark). The opponent had opposed the application on two grounds: namely, Sections 8(2) (b) and 8(7)(a) of the Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2020 Rev Ed) (the act). […]

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 […]