Singapore has rejected a company’s trademark application because it is confusingly similar to the well-known Amazon brand. The decision highlights the importance of protecting intellectual property rights in a global business environment. The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) has been closely examining the potential for confusion between the two trademarks, especially as Amazon expands its operations in Southeast Asia. A recent decision by IPOS has delved into the registration of the formative mark AMAZON, which a Singapore-based company has sought to register.
Table of contents
Survivalverse Pte Ltd (the applicant) is a company based in Singapore, primarily developing electronic games and software, has applied for the trademark AMAZON SURVIVAL, image (applied trademark) in Classes 9 and 41, for use in software and the provision of computer games.
The opponent trademark (AMAZON) in this case is owned by Amazon Technologies Inc., which is widely known as one of the world’s largest companies that operate an e-commerce website ( www.amazon.com), accessible to consumers worldwide and in Singapore. As part of its services, the contestant has established Amazon Game Studios to develop and publish video games. These video games are available on major gaming platforms, the Amazon App Store, and both the Apple App Store and Google Play Store, under the brand “Amazon Games”.
Amazon Technologies Inc., which owns several previous trademark registrations including or containing the word “Amazon,” has opposed the filed trademark on the following basis:
Based on the principles of protection of well-known trademarks recognized internationally in general and Singapore intellectual property law in particular, the grounds for opposition to the application are completely justified.
The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) made its decision based on the following findings:
The significant difference in the size of the mark will be visually prominent in the Singapore application mark (the mark used in business). IPOS believes that if consumers do not remember clearly, they will remember “AMAZON” as a distinctive and prominent element, very similar to the opponent’s mark “AMAZON”. Normally, consumers are very likely to be confused about the size of the mark and may mistakenly remember and assume that the applicant’s mark is that of the opponent – Amazon Technologies Inc.
Aural Similarity
When applying the dominant element approach – where the dominant and distinctive element of the mark is considered – the difference in the size of the mark means that the average consumer is likely to give auditory emphasis to the dominant and distinctive element. Since the simple font mark “AMAZON” of the opponent is also “AMAZON”, it can be concluded that the signs are auditorily similar. Latin letters usually have only one reading, and the applicant’s mark consists of all the letters identical to the letters, leading to identical readings, which may be a source of confusion.
Conceptual similarities
IPOS argued that “AMAZON” could be understood by the public as referring to a known geographical location such as the Amazon rainforest and that adding “SURVIVAL” and other elements such as footprints and the color green to the registered mark would only reinforce this geographical location in the public’s mind. This concept is already understood and associated with the Amazon Technologies Inc. trademark AMAZON by consumers, so if there were an additional mark with letters expressing similar concepts and associations, consumers would be likely to be confused.
Conclusion on similarity
Based on the above, IPOS concluded that the applied trademark bears strong levels of of similarity to the opponent’s trademark “AMAZON” – Amazon Technologies Inc.
Class of identical goods and services
In considering the similarity of goods and services, the applicant acknowledges and is satisfied by IPOS that the goods and services claimed in Classes 9 and 41 of the applied trademark are identical to the goods and services protected under the registered trademark of the opponent, namely No. T1416619I “AMAZON”.
Potential for confusion
When assessing the likelihood of confusion, IPOS considers that there are at least two aspects to consider:
Because the applied mark and the opponent’s “AMAZON” mark have many similarities to identical goods and services, the Registry believes that consumers may be misled into thinking that the goods and services bearing the applied mark belong to or are related to the opponent and, therefore, there is a likelihood of confusion.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the IP Registry Singapore rejects trademark application confused with Amazon.
Singapore’s decision to reject a confusingly similar trademark application filed by Amazon is important for both businesses and consumers, highlighting the importance of protecting trademarks in an increasingly competitive global marketplace. A strong trademark not only helps businesses build their reputation but also differentiates them in the eyes of consumers. Protecting a trademark also prevents confusion, protects consumers’ interests, and ensures that they receive the product or service they expect.
To avoid objections due to opposition when registering a trademark, businesses should seek professional legal advice when registering a trademark to ensure that they do not infringe on the intellectual property rights of third parties. This will not only help protect their rights but also contribute to the sustainable development of the brand in the future. Taking these steps will help businesses not only survive but also thrive in today’s competitive market.
Above is some summary information from the case Singapore rejects trademark application confused with Amazon. This is a typical case in 2024 for the references recognized as well-known trademarks and the doctrine of “dilution” of trademarks. If you need advice on trademark/brand registration, please contact Viet An Law for the most detailed advice!
Source: Denise Mirandah, Kevin Chua, https://asiaiplaw.com/sector/trademarks/an-amazon-discovery
