-
When a Name Feels Too Familiar: Trade Mark Risk in the European Market
How different does a brand name really need to be? Many businesses entering the European market assume that small changes in a name, a different spelling, or a slightly adjusted structure will be enough to avoid trade mark issues. In practice, EU trade mark law does not operate at that level of surface difference. To
-
How Singapore Now Calculates Counterfeit Trademark Damages: The Louis Vuitton S$510,000 Ruling
The counterfeit economy no longer operates only through obvious fake handbags sold in hidden markets. Increasingly, it presents itself through the language of craftsmanship, sustainability, customisation, and upcycling. That shift is visible in the recent Singapore dispute involving Louis Vuitton. The trademarks being copied were not generic logos, but elements of Louis Vuitton’s iconic monogram
-
Puma vs Sunday Red: Not Every Big Cat Is the Same
In January 2024, Sunday Red LLC, the golf and athleisure brand linked to Tiger Woods, applied to register a tiger device mark (a logo made up of an image rather than words) in Singapore. Puma opposed the application. The decision, issued on 13 March 2026 in Puma SE v Sunday Red, LLC [2026] SGIPOS 4,
-
Birkenstock’s Copyright Divide: When the Same Sandal Wins in One Market and Loses in Another
Birkenstock’s Arizona, Madrid and Florida sandals are among the most recognisable footwear designs in Europe, yet in 2025, courts in two neighbouring EU Member States reached opposite conclusions on whether those same designs qualify for copyright protection, exposing how differently the same legal standard can operate across jurisdictions. In February 2025, Germany’s Federal Court of
-
Why “En attendant mon Birkin” Was Held to Be Trademark Infringement
Why “Waiting for My Birkin” Was Treated as Trademark Infringement “En attendant mon Birkin”, translated as “Waiting for my Birkin”, appears at first reading as a light and self-aware phrase. In March 2026, the Court of Appeal of Versailles examined whether such wording, printed on handbags, remains harmless humour or amounts to trademark infringement. The
-
Jo Malone Sold Her Name to Estée Lauder. Now She Is Being Sued for Using It
On 8 April 2026, Jo Malone posted a video on Instagram. She described herself as “surprised and very sad.” The surprise, she said, was a High Court claim filed in March 2026 by The Estée Lauder Companies. “I sold a company,” she said. “I did not sell myself.” That distinction, between a person and a
-
PUMA vs HYPER TYGER: When Getting Too Close Becomes a Problem
The decision in PUMA v. HYPER TYGER, issued on 27 March 2026, is not a blanket rule against using animal logos, nor does it suggest that anything resembling PUMA is automatically prohibited. The outcome is narrower, but more precise. It shows how, in certain circumstances, particularly within the European Union, a brand can be refused
-
Fauré Le Page vs Goyard: The Case of “Paris 1717”
The recent judgment in Fauré Le Page vs Goyard is not about counterfeiting, imitation, or confusingly similar marks. It deals with a narrower but more revealing issue: whether a luxury brand can present a constructed past as fact. At the centre of the dispute is a trade mark bearing the words “Paris 1717”. On its
-
Lacoste vs Crocodile International: The Crocodile Logo Trademark Case
For many people around the world, a small green crocodile stitched on a shirt immediately brings one brand to mind: Lacoste. The French clothing company has used this symbol for decades and built much of its identity around it. But Lacoste is not the only brand that uses a crocodile on its clothes. Crocodile International,