In brief
In Comité International Olympique v Olimp Laboratories Spolka Z Ograniczona Odpowiedzialnoscia [2026] SGIPOS 10, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) dismissed an opposition brought by the International Olympic Committee/Comité International Olympique ("Opponent") against the registration of the OLIMP SPORT NUTRITION mark.
While the IP Adjudicator ("Adjudicator") accepted that the Opponent's OLYMPIC and THE OLYMPICS marks are well known to the public at large in Singapore, he held that fame alone does not guarantee success. The case provides useful guidance on the limits of well-known mark protection in Singapore. It underscores that trade mark owners must still satisfy each statutory element (whether relating to confusion, dilution, unfair advantage or passing off) regardless of the strength of their reputation.
In more detail
Olimp Laboratories Spolka Z Ograniczona Odpowiedzialnoscia ("Applicant") sought to register the composite "
" mark in Classes 5, 29 and 30 for nutritional supplements and related products. The mark comprised the word "OLIMP", the words "SPORT NUTRITION" and a prominent three-hexagon device. The Opponent opposed the application based on its earlier trade marks, namely OLYMPIC, THE OLYMPICS, OLYMPIAN and OLYMPIAD, registered across Classes 5, 29 and/or 30. It argued that the application should be refused on the grounds of likelihood of confusion under Section 8(2)(b) of the Singapore Trade Marks Act ("Act"), protection for well-known marks under Section 8(4)(b)(ii) of the Act, and passing off under Section 8(7)(a) of the Act.
The Adjudicator's key findings were as follows:
1. Similarity alone is not enough
The Adjudicator found that the marks were similar only to a low degree overall. While there was some visual similarity (low degree), aural similarity (moderate degree) and conceptual similarity (low degree) arising from the shared "OLIMP"/"OLYMP" elements, the Adjudicator held that the comparison could not be reduced to those elements alone.
The Adjudicator placed significant weight on the device component, finding it equally significant to the "OLIMP" textual element because of its size, prominent placement, and visual integration with the text. The Adjudicator also emphasised that trade marks must generally be compared as a whole, rather than by focusing on isolated elements.
Although the relevant goods were found to be similar to a moderate degree across all three classes, the Adjudicator ultimately concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion.
2. Well-known status does not confer unlimited protection
The Opponent successfully established that its OLYMPIC and THE OLYMPICS marks are well known to the public at large in Singapore. Notably, the Adjudicator was not satisfied that the same could be said of the OLYMPIAN and OLYMPIAD marks. However, this recognition did not automatically entitle the Opponent to prevent registration of every mark containing a similar-looking or similar-sounding element.
Importantly, the Adjudicator found no likelihood of confusion. Nor was there dilution in an unfair manner of the distinctive character of the Opponent's marks, or any taking of unfair advantage of their reputation.
The decision therefore reinforces that even where a mark enjoys exceptional reputation, the proprietor must still establish the statutory elements required under the Act.
3. Opposition on passing off grounds also failed
The Opponent's reliance on passing off as a ground of opposition met a similar fate. Without needing to determine whether the Opponent had established goodwill or damage, the Adjudicator held that the misrepresentation requirement was not satisfied, as there was no likelihood of confusion and the Opponent did not contend actual confusion.
Key takeaways
The decision clearly illustrates the limits of protection afforded to well-known marks in Singapore. Well-known status is not a standalone basis for preventing the registration of a later mark. Reputation, however extensive, remains only one part of the analysis. Trade mark owners must still show that they meet the relevant legal requirements, whether in relation to confusion, dilution, unfair advantage or passing off.
As the Adjudicator observed, although the protection the law offers a trade mark proprietor is wide, it is not infinite. IPOS was prepared to acknowledge the exceptional status of the Opponent's marks while declining to extend protection to prevent registration of a mark that shares only limited similarities.
For trade mark owners, the case serves as a reminder that:
- Even exceptionally famous marks do not enjoy unlimited protection.
- Evidence of reputation does not replace the need to establish confusion, dilution, unfair advantage or misrepresentation.
- The scope of protection may differ across marks within the same brand portfolio. Evidence that one core mark is exceptionally well known may not establish equivalent recognition for related marks or brand extensions.
- IPOS will continue to assess marks as a whole and may give significant weight to prominent graphical and other distinctive elements contributing to their overall impression.
- Owners of well-known brands face a high evidential burden when seeking to prevent registration of marks that are only indirectly similar to their own.
For businesses adopting new brands, the decision demonstrates that the existence of a famous earlier mark is not necessarily fatal. The overall commercial impression of the mark, including logos and other distinguishing features, remains critical to the assessment. Clearance should assess the proposed mark as a whole, including its verbal, visual and conceptual features and the goods or services concerned.
The case is an important reminder that, in Singapore, even the most famous trade marks remain subject to the ordinary principles of trade mark law.
For more information on how this decision may affect your business or IP strategy, please reach out to your usual Baker McKenzie contact.
* * * * *
© 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.