In brief
Word marks that designate colours may be perceived by consumers as describing characteristics of goods rather than indicating trade origin, making them more difficult to register.
Against this backdrop, on 22 September 2026, following an ex parte hearing, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) directed that the word mark "CELADON" proceed to publication for opposition purposes in respect of an amended specification covering watches, horological and chronometric instruments, and related goods in Class 14.
The central question was whether the average consumer would understand "CELADON" as a colour descriptor. The trade mark examiner considered that "CELADON" denotes a shade of green and therefore describes a characteristic of the goods. The applicant argued instead that the term is more readily associated with ceramics and glaze traditions and would not be understood by the average Singapore consumer as a colour descriptor.
In her decision, the Principal Assistant Registrar (PAR) agreed with the applicant, finding that a significant proportion of the general public in Singapore, being the relevant consumers for such goods, would not understand "CELADON" as a colour descriptor.
In more detail
Background
The trade mark examiner initially refused the mark under Sections 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of the Singapore Trade Marks Act 1998, on the basis that "celadon" refers to a pale blue green colour or a type of greenware and would be perceived as describing the colour of the goods. In a subsequent report, the examiner identified "celadon" by the hex colour code #ACE1AF and maintained that it is a green-based colour. The applicant did not file evidence of acquired distinctiveness.
The decision
The PAR held that a significant proportion of the general public in Singapore, being the relevant consumer for watches, would not understand "celadon" as a colour descriptor. Top Internet search results mainly pertained to "CELADON" referring to "pottery glazed in jade green colour or a type of transparent glaze" rather than "CELADON" as a specific shade of colour. The hex-code websites relied on by the examiner were technical sources, and the PAR considered that consumers outside design or design-related industries would generally not understand "CELADON" as a colour descriptor.
The PAR did, however, reject the applicant's argument that descriptiveness under Section 7(1)(c) must relate to a "specific and objective characteristic" such as the nature, function or inherent attributes of the goods. While the PAR agreed that the main purpose of watches is to tell time, Section 7(1)(c) is not confined to the intended purpose of goods and extends to "other characteristics", including colour – which the PAR considered to be a purchasing consideration for watches. The application overcame the Section 7(1)(c) objection not because colour is irrelevant to watches, but because "celadon" would not be understood as a colour descriptor. As the examiner's Section 7(1)(b) objection was premised on the same finding of descriptiveness, it could not be sustained once the Section 7(1)(c) objection failed.
The PAR also noted that the applicant's arguments were directed principally at watches and horological instruments. While the applicant had offered to narrow its specification, the PAR ultimately directed that the application proceed only in respect of a reduced specification focused on watches, horological and chronometric instruments and related goods, with various jewellery-related goods being removed.
Finally, the PAR emphasised that the decision was made on an ex parte basis and may be challenged in future opposition or invalidation proceedings. Referring to an earlier IPOS decision, the PAR reiterated that examiners must balance safeguarding the integrity of the trade marks register with avoiding undue rigidity in examination. Any subsequent decision-maker would not be bound by the present decision and would be entitled to consider the matter afresh.
Key takeaways
This decision serves as a reminder that registrability is assessed through the eyes of the relevant consumer and the importance of filing strategy. Technical or specialist usage may not, by itself, establish descriptiveness. Businesses considering brand names with industry-specific, historic or foreign-language connotations should assess how those signs are likely to be perceived in the real marketplace.
Applicants should focus submissions and supporting materials on real-world consumer understanding, including the ordinary meaning of the term and the prominence of any alleged descriptive meaning in generally accessible sources.
Specification strategy can be significant to determining overall scope of protection. Where an objection is strongest for only part of a specification, narrowing the goods or services may preserve protection for the applicant's commercial core goods/services. Arguments and proposed amendments should be aligned with the goods/services for which registrability can be properly supported.
At the same time, businesses should not view this decision as opening the door to the registration of colour names generally. IPOS accepted that colour can constitute a characteristic of goods and that the analysis will depend heavily on the nature of the goods concerned and how consumers make purchasing decisions in that market.
Brand owners should therefore review potentially descriptive marks at an early stage, particularly where the sign may refer to colours, product features or other commercially relevant characteristics. Early clearance and filing advice can help identify registrability risks before significant investment is made in a new brand.
This decision arose from an ex parte examination hearing. Acceptance for publication does not prevent a third party from opposing the application or later seeking invalidation, and a subsequent decision-maker may consider the issue afresh.
For more information on how this 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.