The Polo/Lauren Company L.P. v United States Polo Association: Trademark Dispute over Polo Player Logo

The Polo/Lauren Company L.P., owner of the 'polo player' trademark, filed originating motions in the High Court of Singapore to set aside the registration of a similar mark by the United States Polo Association (USPA). Choo Han Teck JC dismissed the motions, finding that the USPA's mark, which includes the letters 'USPA' and depicts a polo player with a low swing, was not likely to cause confusion among consumers, considering the marks, labels, goods, and sales methods.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Motions dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Intellectual Property

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Trademark dispute between The Polo/Lauren Company and the United States Polo Association over similar polo player logos. The court dismissed the motions, finding no likelihood of confusion.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
The Polo/Lauren Company, LPOpponent, AppellantCorporationMotions dismissedLost
United States Polo AssociationApplicant, RespondentAssociationApplications allowedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Sukumar KaruppiahElla Cheong & G Mirandah
Vicki HengElla Cheong & G Mirandah
Deborah MenonElla Cheong & G Mirandah
Chow Kin WahAlban Tay Mahtani & de Silva
Pearleen LohAlban Tay Mahtani & de Silva

4. Facts

  1. The Polo/Lauren Company owns a trademark of a polo player on horseback.
  2. The United States Polo Association applied to register a similar mark.
  3. The opponent's mark shows the polo player with the club on the upswing.
  4. The applicant's mark shows the polo player with the club on the low swing and includes the letters 'USPA'.
  5. The applicant had been selling products with the disputed mark since 1996.
  6. The applicant's products are sold in their own boutiques.
  7. There was no evidence of actual confusion among consumers.

5. Formal Citations

  1. The Polo/Lauren Company L.P. v United States Polo Association, OM 600025/2001, NM 600110/2001, 600131/2001, 600144/2001: OM 600026/2001, NM 600132/2001, 600145/2001, [2002] SGHC 10

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Decision Date
Application to register its mark under Class 18 and Class 25 of the Trade Marks Act

7. Legal Issues

  1. Likelihood of Deception or Confusion
    • Outcome: The court held that the applicant's mark was not calculated to deceive or cause confusion.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Similarities between marks
      • Similarities between goods
      • Actual use of marks
      • Surrounding circumstances

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Setting aside the registration of the applicant's marks
  2. Injunction

9. Cause of Actions

  • Trademark Infringement
  • Passing Off

10. Practice Areas

  • Trademark Registration
  • Intellectual Property Litigation

11. Industries

  • Fashion
  • Retail

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Bali TMN/AYes[1969] RPC 472N/ACited for general principles regarding likelihood of deception or confusion in trademark cases.
Hack's Trade MarkN/AYes(1940) 58 RPC 91N/ACited to distinguish between deception/confusion and passing off.
Jellinek's Trade MarkN/AYes(1946) 63 RPC 59N/ACited for the principle that a reasonable doubt about the source of products is sufficient for confusion.
Kellogg Co v Pacific Food Product Sdn BhdN/AYes[1999] 2 SLR 651SingaporeCited for the principle that comparison of marks must consider actual use and surrounding circumstances.
Celine's Trade MarkN/AYes[1985] RPC 381N/ADistinguished because only the applicant's mark is a composite mark.
The PianotistN/AYes[1906] RPC 774N/ACited for the principle that the likelihood of deception and confusion should be determined by considering the actual use of the mark.
Solavoid Trade MarkN/AYes[1977] RPC 1N/ACited regarding the display of goods and the likelihood of confusion.
Morning Star Co-Operative Ltd v Daily StarN/AYes[1979] FSR 113N/ACited regarding the 'moron in a hurry' standard for assessing confusion.
Newsweek v British Broadcasting CorpN/AYes[1979] RPC 441N/ACited regarding the standard of the ordinary, sensible member of the public for assessing confusion.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 1992 Ed) s 15Singapore
Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 1992 Ed) s 23Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Trademark
  • Polo player
  • Likelihood of confusion
  • Deception
  • Composite mark
  • USPA
  • Originating motion
  • Registration
  • Trade Marks Act

15.2 Keywords

  • trademark
  • polo
  • confusion
  • USPA
  • Singapore
  • intellectual property

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Trademarks95
Trademark Infringement80
Well Known Trade Marks75
Groundless threats of infringement proceedings60

16. Subjects

  • Intellectual Property
  • Trademark Law
  • Trade Names