Case Details
- Citation: [2026] SGIPOS 4
- Court: Intellectual Property Office of Singapore
- Date: 2026-03-13
- Judges: Principal Assistant Registrar Tan Mei Lin
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Sunday Red, LLC
- Defendant/Opponent: Puma SE
- Legal Areas: Trade marks and trade names – Opposition to Registration
- Statutes Referenced: Trade Marks Act, Trade Marks Act 1998
- Cases Cited: [2016] SGHC 32, [2020] SGIPOS 11, [2022] SGIPOS 4, [2024] SGIPOS 5, [2025] SGHC 51, [2026] SGIPOS 4
- Judgment Length: 24 pages, 5,306 words
Summary
In this case, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) had to decide on the similarity between two big cat device marks - the application mark filed by Sunday Red, LLC and the earlier registered marks owned by Puma SE. The Opponent, Puma SE, opposed the registration of the Application Mark on the grounds of likelihood of confusion under Section 8(2)(b), well-known trade mark under Section 8(4)(b), and passing off under Section 8(7)(a) of the Trade Marks Act. After a detailed analysis of the visual, aural, and conceptual similarity between the marks, as well as the similarity of the goods, the IPOS found that there was a likelihood of confusion and upheld the opposition under Section 8(2)(b). However, the opposition under Sections 8(4)(b) and 8(7)(a) was dismissed.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
Sunday Red, LLC (the "Applicant") applied to register the trade mark " " (the "Application Mark") in Singapore covering goods in Classes 18, 25, and 28. The Applicant is a luxury athleisure company focused on golf attire, lifestyle apparel, and accessories, and is a subsidiary of TaylorMade Golf Company, Inc.
The application was opposed by Puma SE (the "Opponent"), a multinational athletic apparel and footwear corporation based in Germany. The Opponent is the registered proprietor of several trade marks featuring a leaping cat device (the "Puma Marks"), which are registered for goods in Classes 18, 25, and 28.
The Opponent relied on Sections 8(2)(b), 8(4)(b)(i), 8(4)(b)(ii)(A) and (B), and 8(7)(a) of the Trade Marks Act 1998 in its opposition.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issues in this case were:
- Whether the Application Mark is similar to the Puma Marks under Section 8(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, such that there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public.
- Whether the Application Mark is similar to the Puma Marks and the Puma Marks are well-known in Singapore under Section 8(4)(b) of the Trade Marks Act.
- Whether the use of the Application Mark would constitute passing off under Section 8(7)(a) of the Trade Marks Act.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The IPOS applied the step-by-step approach laid out in the landmark decision of Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc to assess the opposition under Section 8(2)(b).
On the issue of marks-similarity, the IPOS considered the visual, aural, and conceptual similarity between the Application Mark and the Puma Marks. The IPOS found that the Puma Marks possess at least a normal degree of inherent technical distinctiveness, as the leaping cat device is arbitrary and meaningless in relation to the goods claimed. The IPOS rejected the Applicant's argument that the use of animals as decorative motifs is common in the fashion and athleisure industry, stating that this constituted impermissible evidence about the effect of the registered mark.
In the visual comparison, the IPOS found that the Application Mark and the Puma Marks are highly similar, with the key visual elements being the depiction of a big cat in a leaping or pouncing pose. The IPOS held that the overall impression created by the marks is that of a big cat in a similar dynamic pose, despite some minor differences in the specific details of the depiction.
On aural and conceptual similarity, the IPOS found that the marks are also similar, as both convey the concept of a big cat, even though the Applicant's mark does not contain any word element.
Regarding the similarity of goods, the IPOS found that the goods covered by the Application Mark and the Puma Marks are identical or highly similar, as they all relate to clothing, footwear, bags, and sports equipment.
Considering the marks-similarity and goods-similarity together, the IPOS concluded that there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, and therefore upheld the opposition under Section 8(2)(b).
However, the IPOS dismissed the opposition under Sections 8(4)(b) and 8(7)(a), finding that the Opponent failed to establish that the Puma Marks are well-known in Singapore, and that the use of the Application Mark would not constitute passing off.
What Was the Outcome?
The IPOS upheld the opposition under Section 8(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, finding that there is a likelihood of confusion between the Application Mark and the Puma Marks. As a result, the application for the registration of the Application Mark was refused.
The opposition under Sections 8(4)(b) and 8(7)(a) was dismissed, as the Opponent failed to establish that the Puma Marks are well-known in Singapore and that the use of the Application Mark would constitute passing off.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant for several reasons:
Firstly, it provides guidance on the assessment of marks-similarity, particularly in the context of device marks featuring animals. The IPOS emphasized the need to consider the overall impression created by the marks, rather than focusing on minor differences in the depiction of the animal. This aligns with the principle of avoiding both under-protection and over-protection of prior device marks.
Secondly, the case highlights the importance of establishing the inherent technical distinctiveness of a registered mark, as this is a relevant factor in the marks-similarity analysis. The IPOS rejected the Applicant's argument that the use of animals as decorative motifs is common in the industry, as this would constitute impermissible evidence about the effect of the registered mark.
Lastly, the case demonstrates the high bar that must be met to establish that a mark is well-known in Singapore under Section 8(4)(b) of the Trade Marks Act. Despite Puma's global reputation, the Opponent was unable to prove that the Puma Marks are well-known in the local market, leading to the dismissal of the opposition on this ground.
Overall, this decision provides valuable guidance for trademark practitioners on the assessment of marks-similarity, the role of distinctiveness in the analysis, and the requirements for establishing a well-known mark in Singapore.
Legislation Referenced
- Trade Marks Act
- Trade Marks Act 1998
Cases Cited
- [2016] SGHC 32
- [2020] SGIPOS 11
- [2022] SGIPOS 4
- [2024] SGIPOS 5
- [2025] SGHC 51
- [2026] SGIPOS 4
Source Documents
This article analyses [2026] SGIPOS 4 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.