Trademark Registration in Singapore: IPOS Rules in Favor of Dol Technology Over TikTok Dissimilarity Dispute Securing a distinctive brand identity is a crucial step for businesses in the ever-evolving landscape of intellectual property. A strong brand identity acts like a flag, waving to consumers and distinguishing your commercial products from competitors. However, a landmark legal […]
Securing a distinctive brand identity is a crucial step for businesses in the ever-evolving landscape of intellectual property. A strong brand identity acts like a flag, waving to consumers and distinguishing your commercial products from competitors. However, a landmark legal case highlights that brand recognition alone cannot guarantee success during trademark registration in Singapore.
The dispute of Bytedance Ltd v Dol Technology Pte Ltd [2024] SGIPOS 5 involved the social media giant Bytedance, owner of the hugely popular platform “TikTok.” The multinational tech firm officially challenged a local trademark application filed by a Singaporean entity.
Despite Bytedance’s massive global market share, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) ruled in favor of Dol Technology. The primary reason for this surprising verdict was the legal concept of dissimilarity. IPOS determined that the contested mark “Tiki” possessed enough legal dissimilarity from “TikTok” to be safely registered.
Trademarks exist fundamentally to prevent market confusion and allow consumers to identify the true source of a product. When two commercial marks are too similar, it creates a dangerous likelihood of confusion in the marketplace. Consequently, consumers might mistakenly believe the goods or services originate from the same corporate source.
“This commercial confusion not only harms the established brand reputation,” notes our team at Biro Oktroi Roosseno, a leading IP Law Firm Southeast Asia. “Therefore, ensuring strict distinctiveness during the filing stage is vital to safeguard your long-term corporate investments.”
[IPOS Dissimilarity Evaluation Framework]
Visual Presentation ➔ Phonetic Sound ➔ Conceptual Meaning ➔ Likelihood of Consumer Confusion
To evaluate whether a new application infringes upon an existing brand, IPOS heavily considers three essential pillars:
Visual Similarity: Examining how closely the marks resemble each other when presented textually or graphically.
Phonetic Similarity: Analyzing whether the distinctive names sound alike when spoken aloud by ordinary consumers.
Conceptual Similarity: Assessing if the marks evoke identical ideas, cultural meanings, or concepts in the public mind.
In the “Tiki” case, while “TikTok” and “Tiki” do not look visually identical, they do share a somewhat similar phonetic cadence. Furthermore, “Tiki” is a well-established term deeply associated with traditional Polynesian culture. This distinct cultural meaning successfully created a separate conceptual link for consumers, leading IPOS to reject Bytedance’s trademark infringement claim.
In conclusion, global enterprises can actively safeguard their market share by taking two preventive steps. First, companies must conduct thorough intellectual property searches to identify existing marks before filing. Second, businesses should always choose highly distinctive marks that are inherently different from existing corporate names.
If you are expanding across regional borders, consulting with an experienced intellectual property consultant is highly recommended. As a premier indonesia intellectual property law firm, Biro Oktroi Roosseno is ready to assist you in navigating complex international filings safely.
(source: Biro Oktroi Roosseno Singapore)
