Singapore: Successful Opposition Against “Aswins” Composite Mark Application

In brief

On 20 April 2026, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) allowed an opposition filed by Aswins Home Special (“Opponent”) against the application by Aswins Sweets & Snacks Pte Ltd (“Applicant”) to register the "" mark (“Application Mark”) in Classes 29 and 30.

The Opponent, who did not have any trade mark registrations in Singapore that pre-dated the Application Mark, relied on two grounds of opposition: (a) passing off under Section 8(7)(a) of the Singapore Trade Marks Act (TMA); and (b) bad faith under Section 7(6) of the TMA.

The Principal Assistant Registrar (PAR) found that the Opponent successfully established a notional case of passing off and noted in obiter that the Applicant had filed the application to register the Application Mark in bad faith.

In more detail

The Opponent is an Indian manufacturer of traditional sweets and snacks marked and sold under the name “ASWINS”. It had been selling its products in Singapore since at least March 2021 through an exclusive local distributor. The main signs used by the Opponent in Singapore in connection with its sweets and snacks are “ASWINS” and "".

In August 2023, the Applicant applied to register the Application Mark, a composite trade mark containing the alphabet “a” surrounded by curved stylisations above the word “Aswins” and the additional words “Sweets & Snacks”, in Classes 29 and 30 covering snacks, biscuits and sweets.

The PAR found that a notional case of passing off was made out as:

1. The Opponent had established sufficient goodwill in Singapore prior to the relevant date, through consistent imports, distribution to retailers and e-commerce platforms, and evidence of sales and marketing activities prior to 4 August 2023, when the Applicant filed the application to register the Application Mark.
2. The sign “Aswins” was the dominant and distinctive element of the Application Mark and the additional words “Sweets & Snacks” were descriptive and non-distinctive and would not play a distinguishing role.
3. The Application Mark was strikingly similar to the Opponent’s trade mark, as it shared the sign “Aswins” and the alphabet “a” surrounded by curved stylisations.
4. The Applicant’s claimed goods are the same as or very similar to the Opponent’s goods sold under the Opponent’s trade marks, and given the substantial similarity between the competing marks and overlap in goods, there was a likelihood of confusion, particularly as the goods are affordably priced fast-moving consumer products that would be purchased without an especially high degree of consumer attention.
5. The use of the Application Mark would result in damage to the Opponent’s goodwill through diverted sales as well as blurring i.e., when the goodwill attached to the Opponent’s business becomes spread out over business, goods or services which are not the Opponent’s.

The PAR also noted that the Opponent had raised sufficient evidence to put forward a prima facie case of bad faith – including that the Applicant knew (or ought reasonably to have known) of the Opponent’s trade marks given the latter’s established reputation in India and its market presence in Singapore and that the Applicant’s director was involved in the registration of other companies in Singapore with names which resembled well-known Indian brands. Instead of responding with credible evidence as to how the Application Mark was derived, however, the Applicant remained silent.

Key takeaways

This decision is a useful reminder of how IPOS approaches passing off as a ground of objection under Section 8(7)(a) of the TMA in opposition proceedings. Even where a mark is not registered in Singapore, a party can succeed if it is able to demonstrate actionable goodwill in Singapore, a likelihood of misrepresentation, and damage on a prospective basis. The evidential threshold is fact-sensitive but can be met through a combination of sales figures, distribution arrangements and online presence, even over a relatively short period.

The case also reinforces that dominance remains central to mark similarity analysis. Where the distinctive element of a mark is wholly incorporated into a later mark, the distinctive element is attributed more weight, and the addition of descriptive or non-distinctive wording (such as “Sweets & Snacks”) is unlikely to avoid a finding of similarity. This is particularly acute in the Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) space, where purchasing decisions are often made quickly and with imperfect recollection, increasing the likelihood of confusion.

From a commercial perspective, the decision highlights the importance of securing trade mark protection early when entering the Singapore market, even where products are initially sold through distributors. Reliance solely on goodwill, while possible, is evidentially heavier and introduces avoidable uncertainty. If a party is required to rely on unregistered marks and passing off, goodwill needs to be established which is an evidentiary question that will increase costs compared to a trade mark infringement claim that does not require goodwill to be established.

On bad faith, the decision underscores that IPOS is prepared to scrutinise surrounding conduct and patterns of behaviour, including knowledge of prior marks and prior dealings by the applicant. While a finding of bad faith was not strictly necessary here, the discussion signals that a failure to provide a credible explanation for mark selection can weigh heavily against an applicant, particularly where other circumstantial evidence suggests opportunism.

Businesses defending a bad faith claim must be prepared to explain brand genesis (e.g., naming, design development, pre-filing use, agency briefs). Remaining silent or submitting a lack of evidence can allow adverse inferences, especially where there is circumstantial evidence, such as patterns of similar company names and awareness of foreign reputation.

Overall, the decision reflects a firm stance against opportunistic filings that appropriate the core branding of an existing player, especially where there is overlap in goods and channels of trade.

Sanil Khatri, Daryl Seetoh, and Natalie Joy Huang, Local Principals, have contributed to this legal update.

* * * * *

© 2026 Baker & McKenzie. Wong & Leow. All rights reserved. Baker & McKenzie. Wong & Leow is incorporated with limited liability and is a member firm of Baker & McKenzie International, a global law firm with member law firms around the world. In accordance with the common terminology used in professional service organizations, reference to a "principal" means a person who is a partner, or equivalent, in such a law firm. Similarly, reference to an "office" means an office of any such law firm. This may qualify as "Attorney Advertising" requiring notice in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.