- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Bytedance Loses Trademark Battle to Dol Technology in Singapore
Bytedance Loses Trademark Battle to Dol Technology in Singapore
Bytedance, the Chinese internet technology giant and owner of the popular social media platform TikTok, has lost a Trademark dispute against Singapore-based Dol Technology. The decision was announced by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS), a statutory board under the Ministry of Law responsible for the management of intellectual property rights in Singapore.
The dispute centered around Dol Technology's attempts to register the trademark “Tiki” for its voice-over internet protocol services and interactive digital media software. Bytedance opposed these trademark applications, which were filed by Dol Tech in May and August 2021, citing potential confusion with its well-known “TikTok” trademark.
Bytedance lodged their objections in December 2021 and January 2022, arguing that Dol Tech’s “Tiki” mark bore a resemblance to the “TikTok” word mark and device mark. They also claimed that Dol Tech was linked to Joyy Inc, a competitor operating the video-sharing platform Likee, which Bytedance alleged was similar to TikTok.
However, in a decision issued on June 14, Principal Assistant Registrar Mark Lim of IPOS dismissed Bytedance's opposition on all counts. Lim concluded that while the “TikTok” word mark was widely recognized in Singapore, the visual and conceptual dissimilarities between “Tiki” and “TikTok,” as well as the minimal aural similarity, undermined Bytedance's case. He further noted that the device mark and composite mark associated with TikTok were not as well-known among the general public in Singapore.
Following this ruling, Dol Tech has been awarded SGD 9,000 (USD 6,671) in costs, including disbursements. The IPOS clarified that Bytedance has the option to appeal the decision to the general division of the High Court of Singapore.
This outcome highlights the challenges of enforcing trademark rights in cases involving perceived similarities and underscores the complexities of protecting well-known brands in diverse international markets.