Asian businessman and woman people meeting in office. Employee brainstorm and work as team, plan
Asian businessman and woman people meeting in office. Employee brainstorm and work as team, plan

Singapore Trademark Update: Dissimilarity of Marks and Trademark Protection (ID)

Securing a trademark is crucial for businesses in the ever-evolving landscape of intellectual property. A strong trademark acts like a flag, waving to consumers and distinguishing your brand from competitors. However, a recent case in Singapore underscores the importance of another key factor in trademark registration: dissimilarity. The case of Bytedance Ltd v Dol Technology […]

Securing a trademark is crucial for businesses in the ever-evolving landscape of intellectual property. A strong trademark acts like a flag, waving to consumers and distinguishing your brand from competitors.

However, a recent case in Singapore underscores the importance of another key factor in trademark registration: dissimilarity.

The case of Bytedance Ltd v Dol Technology Pte Ltd [2024] SGIPOS 5 involved the social media giant Bytedance, owner of the hugely popular platform “TikTok,” challenging a trademark application for”” by a Singaporean firm. Despite Bytedance’s established brand recognition with “TikTok,” the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) ruled favor of Dol Technology. The reason? The mark “Tiki” itself lacked sufficient dissimilarity from “TikTok” to warrant exclusive trademark rights.

Why Dissimilarity Matters

Imagine walking into a supermarket aisle filled with identical cereal boxes. How would you choose a brand? Trademarks exist to prevent this very confusion. They allow consumers to easily identify the source of a product or service. When two marks are too similar, it creates a likelihood of confusion – consumers might mistakenly believe the goods or services come from the same source. This confusion not only harms the established brand but also misleads the public.

The Dissimilarity Test

So, how similar is too similar? IPOS considers various factors when evaluating dissimilarity, including:

  • Visual Similarity: How similar do the marks look when written or presented visually?
  • Phonetic Similarity: Do the marks sound alike when spoken?
  • Conceptual Similarity: Do the marks evoke similar ideas or concepts in the consumer’s mind?

The “Tiki” Case: A Lesson in Dissimilarity

In the Bytedance case, while “TikTok” and “Tiki” might not appear visually identical phonetically, they share a similar sound. Furthermore, “Tiki” is a well-established term associated with Polynesian culture, potentially creating a conceptual link for consumers. This lack of dissimilarity led IPOS to reject Bytedance’s trademark infringement claim.

Protecting Your Brand

Companies can safeguard their trademarks by:

  • Conducting thorough trademark searches: This helps identify existing marks and assess potential conflicts before filing an application.
  • Choosing distinctive marks: Opt for marks that are inherently different from existing trademarks and don’t mislead consumers.

Conclusion

Brand recognition is valuable, but dissimilarity is the cornerstone of a strong trademark. By understanding the importance of dissimilarity and conducting proper due diligence, companies can confidently navigate the trademark landscape, ensuring their brands stand out in the marketplace and avoid confusion among consumers. The “Bytedance” case serves as a stark reminder – brand recognition alone can’t guarantee trademark success. Choose your marks wisely, and ensure they are sufficiently dissimilar from existing ones to secure the legal protection your brand deserves.

 

(source: Biro Oktroi Roosseno Singapore)

Share article:

Related post

Artikel
Desember 5, 2024

Rainha Boki Raja-Ratu Ternate Abad Keenam Belas

Prosa lirik karya Toeti Heraty Eksekutif Produser: Dr. Inda Citraninda Noerhadi Sutradara: Fendi Siregar Penulis Naskah:...
Artikel
November 29, 2024

Indonesia Trademark Update: Disputed Koi Fish Food (ID)

A trademark dispute has arisen between the Japanese company and a local importer related to koi fish rearing over the us...
Artikel
November 29, 2024

Indonesia Trademark Update: Unraveling the BITUBO Trademark Turmoil (ID)

In Intellectual Property Rights, disputes over trademarks can often become contentious battles, as seen in the case betw...
Artikel
November 29, 2024

Indonesia Trademark Update: The Absolut Company Aktiebolag Takes Legal Action Over the Trademark “ABSOLUT” (ID)

Currently, Absolut company Aktiebolag has commenced legal proceedings against alleged trademark infringement of its famo...

Kantor

Kantor Taman A-9, Unit C1 & C2
JI. Dr. Ide Anak Agung Gde Agung
Mega Kuningan, Jakarta 12950, Indonesia PO.BOX. 4585 Jakarta 1001

Telepon

+62-21-5762310 (Hunting)
+62-21-5762308

Email

iprlaw@iprbor.com

Kontak

+62-21-5762301
+62-21-5762302
+62-21-5762303
(65) 8626-4084 (E-Fax)
© Biro Oktroi Roosseno