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.
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.
So, how similar is too similar? IPOS considers various factors when evaluating dissimilarity, including:
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.
Companies can safeguard their trademarks by:
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)
