SINGAPORE: In a significant legal ruling, ByteDance, the parent company of the globally renowned social media platform TikTok, has failed to prevent a Singapore-based firm, Dol Technology, from registering the trademark for its short video app, Tiki. This decision, issued by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (Ipos) on June 14, 2024, underscores the complexities of trademark law and the nuanced differences between similar-sounding brands.
Principal Assistant Registrar Mark Lim, in his published decision, detailed why ByteDance’s objections did not hold, emphasizing that the marks were not sufficiently similar to cause confusion among consumers. This ruling is crucial not only for the parties involved but also for understanding the thresholds of trademark similarity and consumer perception in the digital age.
Dol Technology first moved to register the Tiki trademark in 2021, aiming to secure its brand for the app that allowed users to create, watch, and share short videos. ByteDance, perceiving potential conflicts with its TikTok trademark, filed oppositions on December 23, 2021, and January 18, 2022, to block this registration.
The Tiki app, launched on February 22, 2021, in India, quickly gained traction among users for its user-friendly platform that enabled social sharing and short video creation. However, the app was discontinued on June 27, 2023, due to the overarching challenges in the tech industry. Despite its shutdown, the trademark dispute continued, focusing on the potential for confusion between the two brands.
- Visual and Conceptual Differences: Lim highlighted that Tiki and TikTok’s logos and visual representations were distinct. TikTok’s logo features a musical note, symbolizing its focus on music and entertainment. In contrast, Tiki’s logo incorporates a stylized letter “T” within a play icon, signifying its emphasis on video content.
- Aural Similarity: Although the names “Tiki” and “TikTok” share a phonetic resemblance, Lim noted that this similarity was minimal and unlikely to cause significant consumer confusion. He illustrated that if all two-syllable words starting with “tic” were considered similar, it would unreasonably extend to unrelated words like “ticket” or “Tic Tac”.
- Overlapping Goods and Services: The ruling did acknowledge that the goods and services offered under both trademarks overlapped. However, this overlap was not deemed sufficient to establish confusion due to the distinct branding elements of each app.
- Exceeding Submission Limits: ByteDance’s submissions exceeded the prescribed page limits, with one document reaching 345 pages against a limit of 300, and another being 103 pages, just over the 100-page limit. This was noted in the decision as contributing to the awarded costs.
| Feature | Tiki | TikTok |
|---|---|---|
| Logo | Stylized “T” in a play icon | Musical note |
| Concept | Video sharing and creation | Music and short video entertainment |
| Phonetic Similarity | Low | N/A |
| Launch Date | February 22, 2021 | September 2016 |
| Trademark Registration | Applied in 2021 | Established prior |
| App Status | Discontinued (June 2023) | Active globally |
Lim’s decision underscored several important factors that contributed to the ruling:
- Distinct Visual Identities: The visual dissimilarities between the Tiki and TikTok logos played a crucial role. TikTok’s branding is strongly associated with its musical note logo, which is central to its identity as a platform for music and entertainment content. In contrast, Tiki’s logo, featuring a play icon integrated with the letter “T,” clearly aligns with its focus on video content. This distinction in visual branding reduces the likelihood of confusion among users.
- Minimal Aural Confusion: Lim’s analysis of the auditory similarities found that the phonetic overlap was too slight to cause substantial confusion. This point is significant in trademark law, where aural similarity often impacts consumer perception. The decision set a precedent that minor phonetic similarities, without substantial visual or conceptual overlap, do not necessarily equate to trademark infringement.
- Consumer Perception: Lim concluded that the average consumer would not likely confuse the two brands due to their distinct visual and conceptual identities. This assessment reflects a deeper understanding of how consumers perceive and differentiate between brands based on their logos, naming conventions, and market positioning.
- Legal Boundaries of Trademark Similarity: The ruling also emphasized the legal boundaries within which trademarks are protected. If ByteDance’s broader interpretation of trademark similarity were accepted, it could unjustifiably restrict other brands from using names with common prefixes or syllables. This consideration is vital in maintaining a fair competitive landscape.
- Procedural Considerations: ByteDance’s failure to adhere to submission limits affected the costs awarded. This procedural aspect highlights the importance of adhering to legal guidelines and the potential consequences of exceeding prescribed limits in legal proceedings.
This ruling has broader implications for the tech industry and trademark law. It underscores the need for companies to carefully consider the distinctiveness of their branding elements and the potential for consumer confusion. As digital platforms proliferate, clear differentiation in branding becomes essential to avoid legal conflicts and to secure trademarks effectively.
Moreover, the decision illustrates the judicial approach to evaluating trademark disputes, balancing the visual, conceptual, and aural aspects of brands. It provides a reference point for future cases where companies face challenges over the similarity of their trademarks.
The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore’s decision to allow Dol Technology to register the Tiki trademark despite ByteDance’s opposition is a landmark ruling that highlights the nuanced nature of trademark law. It serves as a reminder for companies to ensure their branding is distinct and to be mindful of the competitive landscape when developing their trademarks.
As ByteDance continues to dominate the short video market with TikTok, this case stands as a significant example of how legal systems balance corporate interests and consumer protection in the evolving digital age.
This detailed analysis not only reflects on the specific case but also offers insights into broader trademark issues and the importance of distinctive branding in a crowded marketplace.
Related News:
Featured Image courtesy of AI-Monitor