In Merck KGaA v Pfizer Inc [2026] SGIPOS 7, the Tribunal in the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore considered whether the composite mark , comprising the invented word “ABRYSVO” together with a circular logo element , (the application mark) was similar to the earlier registered trademark , comprising the invented word “MAVENCLAD” together with a circular logo element, , (the opponent’s mark).

The application was filed by Pfizer Inc, (the applicant) in respect of “vaccines for human use” in Class 5. Merck KGaA (the opponent) opposed the application based on its earlier registration for the mark MAVENCLAD with a circle logo for “pharmaceutical products; medical and veterinary preparations; hygiene preparations and articles for medical purposes; dietetic preparations and dietetic food supplements” in Class 5.

The grounds of opposition were Sections 8(2)(b), 8(4)(b)(i) and 8(7)(a) of the Trade Marks Act 1998.

The principal issue before the principal assistant registrar was whether the competing composite marks were sufficiently similar, particularly where both contained invented word elements and circular logo elements.

Opponent’s case

The opponent argued that the application mark was visually similar to the opponent’s mark because both incorporated highly similar circular logo elements consisting of a series of arcs set in a concentric circle and both logos were very similar in size.

The opponent contended that the circular device was the dominant and memorable component of its mark. It argued that the invented word MAVENCLAD was unfamiliar to consumers and therefore less likely to be remembered, with consumers instead gravitating towards the recognizable circular device.

The opponent also submitted that the competing word elements shared the letters “A” and “V”, further contributing to visual similarity.

Based on the alleged similarity between the marks, the opponent argued that registration should be refused under Sections 8(2)(b), 8(4)(b)(i) and 8(7)(a) of the Trade Marks Act.

Applicant’s case

The applicant argued that the invented word MAVENCLAD, rather than the circular device, was the dominant and distinctive component of the opponent’s mark.

The applicant submitted that invented words possess a high degree of technical distinctiveness and that the circular logo was merely a simple decorative element which consumers would not perceive as indicating commercial origin. The invented word ABRYSVO was the dominant and distinctive element of the application mark.

The principal assistant registrar dismissed the opposition under all three grounds.

Invented word elements were the dominant and distinctive components of both composite marks. The principal assistant registrar rejected the opponent’s argument that consumers would focus on the circular device because the invented word was unfamiliar. Instead, the principal assistant registrar held that there is no general rule that invented words, by virtue of being unfamiliar, are difficult for consumers to recall. On the contrary, invented words typically possess a high degree of inherent distinctiveness and are likely to function as indicators of trade origin.

Although the circular devices occupied a noticeable proportion of each mark, they were simple devices that conveyed no particular concept for the average consumer and were more likely to be perceived as decorative elements rather than as an indicator of commercial origin.

The competing marks were visually dissimilar. Having identified the invented words as the dominant and distinctive components, the principal assistant registrar considered the marks as a whole and concluded that ABRYSVO and MAVENCLAD were visually different.

The common appearance of the letters A and V in the word elements of the marks was insufficient to establish similarity because:

1. The common letters comprised only two out of seven letters in ABRYSVO and nine letters in MAVENCLAD;
2. The letters appear at entirely different positions in each word: in ABRYSVO they are far apart, whereas in MAVENCLAD they appear consecutively;
3. The words differed in length; and
4. The words begin and end with completely different letters.

The marks were aurally dissimilar and conceptually neutral. The parties agreed that the marks were aurally dissimilar.

Conceptually, both ABRYSVO and MAVENCLAD were invented words conveying no meaning. Consistent with earlier authority, the principal assistant registrar held that where competing invented words have no conceptual meaning, they are neither conceptually similar nor conceptually dissimilar but are conceptually neutral.

Marks similarity is a threshold requirement. As the competing marks were visually dissimilar, aurally dissimilar and conceptually neutral, the principal assistant registrar concluded that they were overall dissimilar.

Since similarity of marks is a threshold requirement under Sections 8(2)(b) and 8(4)(b)(i) of the Trade Marks Act, it was unnecessary to consider the likelihood of confusion or damage to the opponent’s interests.

Similarly, the passing off ground under Section 8(7)(a) also failed because the absence of marks similarity meant that the essential element of misrepresentation could not be established.

Significance

This decision provides useful guidance on the assessment of composite trademarks comprising invented word elements and relatively simple device elements.

First, the decision reaffirms that invented words generally possess a high degree of inherent technical distinctiveness and will often constitute the dominant component of a composite mark, notwithstanding the presence of accompanying device elements.

Secondly, the decision illustrates that simple geometric or decorative devices are unlikely, without more, to dominate the overall impression of a composite mark or function as the indicator of commercial origin.

Finally, the decision reinforces that marks must be compared as a whole. While identifying the dominant and distinctive component assists in assessing overall impression, it does not permit the comparison to be reduced to one isolated feature. Similarity in simple device elements alone will not establish overall similarity where the dominant invented word elements create distinct visual, aural and conceptual impressions.