An Amazon discovery
24 October 2024
This recent Intellectual Property Office of Singapore decision delved into the registrability of an AMAZON-formative mark sought to be registered by a Singapore-incorporated company.
Background
Survivalverse Pte Ltd (the applicant) is a Singapore-incorporated company that principally develops videogames and software, which applied to register the mark 
(the application mark) in Classes 9 and 41, to be used for software and provision of computer games.
Amazon Technologies Inc (the opponent) is widely known as one of the world’s largest companies operating an ecommerce website (www.amazon.com), accessible to consumers worldwide and in Singapore. As part of their offerings, the opponent founded Amazon Game Studios to develop and publish video games. These video games are available on major gaming platforms, the Amazon app store, and both the Apple App Store and Google Play Store, under the “Amazon Games” mark and brand.
The opponent, having owned numerous earlier trademark registrations comprising or containing the word “Amazon”, opposed the application mark on the grounds a) that the marks were confusingly similar; b) that use of the application mark would damage the interests of the opponent; c) that the application mark was similar to its well-known marks thereby causing a dilution; and d) of passing off.
Confusing similarity of the marks
The Registrar held the following:
Visual similarity
The significant size difference of
meant that this would visually stand out in the application mark. The Registrar held that given imperfect recollection, consumers would recall “AMAZON” as the distinctive and dominant element, which is highly similar to the opponent’s “AMAZON” marks.
Aural similarity
In applying the dominant component approach – whereby the dominant and distinctive component of the marks are considered, the size differential of the application mark
meant that the average consumer would likely place verbal emphasis on
as the aurally distinctive and dominant component. As the opponent’s plain font “AMAZON” mark is also “AMAZON”, it was concluded that the marks are aurally similar.
Conceptual similarity
The Registrar held the view that “AMAZON” is likely to be understood by the public as a reference to a known geographical location and the addition of “SURVIVAL” and other elements such as the pawprint and the colour green in the application mark would only reinforce this geographical location in the minds of the public.
Based on the above, the Registrar concluded that application mark bears strong levels of similarity with the opponent’s “AMAZON” marks.
Identical goods and services
In examination of the similarity of goods and services, it is acknowledged by the applicant and concurred by the Registrar that the goods and services sought in Class 9 and 41 of the application mark, is identical to those covered under the opponent’s registered mark no. T1416619I “AMAZON”.
Likelihood of confusion
In assessing whether there is a likelihood of confusion, the Registrar held that there are at least two aspects to be considered, the first being the mistaking of one mark for another, and the second being where the relevant segment of the public may well perceive that the conflicting marks are different but yet remain confused as to the origin, they may mistakenly believe that the goods and services bearing the two marks to come from the same source and have some links.
As the application mark and the opponent’s “AMAZON” mark are significantly similar with identical goods and services, the Registrar held the view that consumers are likely to be confused into thinking that the goods and services under the application mark belong to that of the opponent or has links to the opponent and hence, a likelihood of confusion.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Registrar allowed the opposition on the grounds of the application mark being confusingly similar and the application mark was consequently refused registration.
About the author
Law firms
