Baker & McKenzie
In brief
The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) has refused the registration of a “PINGPONG” mark applied for by Speedy Trade Finance Limited (“Speedy Trade Finance”), following an opposition by Hangzhou Pingpong Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd (“Hangzhou Pingpong”). Despite not having launched its services in Singapore on the filing date, Hangzhou Pingpong successfully relied on passing off (Section 8(7)(a) of the Trade Marks Act), demonstrating sufficient pre-launch goodwill in relation to its forthcoming payment services. The full written grounds of the decision can be found here.
A clash between two “PINGPONGs”
Speedy Trade Finance, the applicant, is a Hong Kong SAR company with no demonstrated commercial presence in Singapore. It applied to register its “PINGPONG” mark in Class 36 for various financial and payment-related services. The opponent, Hangzhou Pingpong, is a Mainland China-headquartered fintech company, serving global businesses with e-commerce payments, B2B transactions, foreign exchange services and related financial processing. It had used the “PINGPONG” branding internationally since 2015. While Hangzhou Pingpong’s Singapore launch was pending on the relevant date, its commercial rollout was “very close” — including securing office space, staffing and regulatory approvals.
Passing off established on the facts
To establish passing off, Hangzhou Pingpong had to show (i) goodwill, (ii) misrepresentation and (iii) damage. IPOS accepted that pre-launch business activities could generate goodwill if they were directed at creating demand and supported by an unequivocal intention to enter the market. Relevant evidence that was found sufficient included the following:
- Incorporation of a local entity and hiring of staff.
- Leasing space in the Ocean Financial Centre.
- Major payment institution license application and approval timeline.
- Participation and brand promotion at the Singapore FinTech Festival 2022 (and 2023 arrangements).
This was distinguished from cases where the pre-launch publicity was too generic or limited in Singapore exposure.
The marks were found to be essentially identical in the word element, with clear overlap in relevant financial/payment services, making it likely that consumers would assume a commercial connection.
Where services overlap, IPOS held that the likelihood of diverted business was sufficient to establish damage.
Other grounds
Hangzhou Pingpong also relied on well-known mark protection and bad faith. However, these were not analyzed in depth as the passing-off ground was determinative.
Key takeaways
The IPOS decision is significant, as it underscores that pre-launch activity can generate protectable goodwill where a brand’s market entry is sufficiently imminent and supported by targeted publicity. It also highlights the importance of proactive rights protection, especially for fast-expanding digital and fintech businesses.
Organizations planning to launch in Singapore may wish to review their branding, event participation, brand-building activities, licensing timelines, marketing, and publicity strategies to ensure that key markets are safeguarded well in advance of rollout. We are continuing to track developments in this area and are available to support clients in managing these considerations as part of their broader IP and market-entry planning in Singapore, the APAC region and globally.
