No Confusion About What’s NEXT: NEXTEVO Survives Invalidation

How much weight should be given to an earlier mark that appears at the beginning of a longer, invented word?

In NEXT Holdings Limited v NEXTEVO Holdings Pte Ltd [2026] SGIPOS 12, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (“IPOS”) dismissed applications by NEXT Holdings Limited to invalidate two registrations for “NEXTEVO” and “” owned by NEXTEVO Holdings Pte Ltd.

Ghows LLC successfully represented NEXTEVO Holdings Pte Ltd, the Proprietor. The invalidation applications failed on all four grounds and both “NEXTEVO” marks remain registered. IPOS also awarded the Proprietor S$14,450 in costs, inclusive of disbursements.

The decision is particularly interesting for its treatment of an invented word which incorporates an earlier mark in its entirety. Although “NEXTEVO” begins with “NEXT”, the Registrar declined to pull the word apart and treat those first four letters as determinative.

NEXT is not NEXTEVO
A central issue was whether the presence of “NEXT” at the beginning of “NEXTEVO” made the marks similar.

The Registrar held that it did not.

Visually, the marks were distinguishable. “NEXT” is a four-letter word, whereas “NEXTEVO” is a seven-letter word. The additional “-EVO” altered the length, ending and overall visual impression of the latter mark.

The marks were also aurally different. “NEXT” is monosyllabic, whereas “NEXTEVO” would naturally be pronounced as a continuous three-syllable word. The Registrar did not accept that “NEXT” should be treated as the dominant aural element of “NEXTEVO”; the ending was also significant.

NEXT argued that, since the Proprietor had itself explained that “NEXTEVO” was derived from “Next” and “evolution”, the concept of “NEXT” remained dominant within the later mark. The Registrar disagreed. Particularly in the case of an invented word such as “NEXTEVO”, it would be artificial to first divide the mark into “NEXT” and “EVO” and then treat one component as conceptually dominant. Even if “EVO” were perceived as an allusion to “evolution”, that concept would materially alter the overall idea conveyed by the mark.

Although the section 8(2)(b) claim had already failed at the threshold requirement of marks similarity, the Registrar went on to consider likelihood of confusion.

For textile goods in Class 24, the relevant public included both trade purchasers and ordinary consumers. Trade purchasers would be expected to scrutinise matters such as quality, material composition and technical specifications, while ordinary consumers buying items such as bedsheets, towels and furnishing fabrics would likewise exercise some deliberation rather than purchase entirely on impulse.

For Class 23 goods such as fibres, threads and yarns, professional purchasers would generally exercise a relatively high degree of care, while ordinary consumers would still tend to select products with a particular purpose, colour, fibre type or weight in mind.

Even if the marks had been assumed to possess some degree of similarity, the Registrar considered that there would still have been no reasonable likelihood of confusion.

The remaining grounds
The finding that “NEXT” and “NEXTEVO” were dissimilar also proved fatal to NEXT’s claim under section 8(4)(b). Marks similarity remains a threshold requirement for the protection afforded to well-known marks under that provision.

The passing-off ground under section 8(7)(a) likewise failed. Misrepresentation is an essential element of passing off, and the Registrar held that, given the findings on similarity and confusion, NEXT could not establish the necessary misrepresentation.

NEXT also alleged that the “NEXTEVO” applications were filed in bad faith because the Proprietor ought to have known of the earlier “NEXT” marks. The Registrar rejected this argument. Knowledge of an earlier mark, even a well-known one, is not by itself sufficient to establish bad faith. Something more must be shown to demonstrate that the filing fell below acceptable standards of commercial behaviour. No such evidence was established here.

Reflection
The decision is a useful reminder that finding an earlier mark somewhere inside a later mark is not the end of the comparison.

“NEXT” appears, letter for letter, at the beginning of “NEXTEVO”. But “NEXTEVO” is more than “NEXT” with something added to the end. The additional letters changed how the mark looked, sounded and what it meant. Viewed as a whole, it created a different overall impression.

Sometimes, what comes after “NEXT” makes all the difference.

Ghows LLC represented NEXTEVO Holdings Pte Ltd, the successful Proprietor, with Millicent Lui appearing at the hearing.