Singapore: Protection of unregistered trademarks
08 May 2026
The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) has delivered a significant ruling on the protection of unregistered trademark rights in Singapore, reinforcing the strength of passing off and bad faith as claims that may be argued successfully in trademark oppositions where there are no trademark registrations. In Aswins Home Special v. Aswins Sweets & Snacks Pte Ltd, IPOS allowed the opposition against the registration of the “ASWINS” trade mark application filed by Singapore-incorporated Aswins Sweets & Snacks following opposition proceedings brought by Indian snack manufacturer Aswins Home Special.
The dispute centred on the use of the name “ASWINS” in relation to traditional Indian sweets and snacks. Although the opponent, Aswins Home Special, did not possess an earlier registered trade mark in Singapore, it successfully demonstrated that it had acquired substantial goodwill in the local market through sales and distribution activities dating back to March 2021. The company relied on evidence showing extensive sales through established Singapore retailers, including Mustafa and Haniffa, as well as online platforms such as Shopee and Lazada.
The Principal Assistant Registrar (PAR) in its decision found that the opponent had established all three elements required for a successful passing off claim: goodwill, misrepresentation and damage. The tribunal concluded that consumers encountering the applicant’s mark were likely to believe that the products originated from, or were connected with, the Indian manufacturer because the dominant and distinctive element in both signs comprised of the word “ASWINS”.
The decision is particularly important because it confirms that foreign businesses can acquire enforceable goodwill in Singapore even without a registered trademark, provided of course if they can demonstrate meaningful commercial presence and consumer recognition in the local market. The ruling also illustrates the growing importance of documentary evidence in trademark disputes, with IPOS paying close attention to invoices, shipping records, online listings, advertising materials and sales figures to determine whether goodwill existed in making out a successful claim under passing off.
Another notable aspect of the ruling was the tribunal’s finding of bad faith on the part of the applicant. IPOS found that the applicant had likely been aware of the opponent’s business when filing the trademark application. In its decision, the PAR highlighted that the applicant had incorporated several entities bearing the “ASWINS” name only after the opponent’s products were already available in Singapore. The tribunal also drew adverse inferences from the applicant’s failure to adequately explain the origin of the mark or to rebut allegations raised during the proceedings.
The decision also serves to highlight as well as affirms IPOS’ role in scrutinising trademark filings closely especially where there are indications of opportunistic conduct or attempts to appropriate an established brand. This augurs well for international businesses seeking to expand into Singapore, particularly those that may begin trading before obtaining formal registrations of their trademarks.
For businesses operating in Singapore, the ruling further serves as a reminder that while trademark registration remains an important pre-requisite, unregistered rights can still receive strong legal protection when supported by evidence of genuine market activity. At the same time, companies adopting new brands are strongly advised to conduct careful due diligence to ensure they are not infringing the goodwill of existing traders, even where no prior registration exists.
More broadly, the case reflects Singapore’s continuing commitment to maintaining a robust and commercially fair intellectual property regime. By recognising the value of marketplace reputation and condemning bad faith filings, IPOS has reinforced Singapore’s position as a trusted jurisdiction for brand protection and cross-border commerce.
About the author
Law firms
