When Fame Cuts Both Ways: IPOS Rejects Olympic Committee’s Opposition to OLIMP SPORT NUTRITION

In Comité International Olympique v Olimp Laboratories Spolka Z Ograniczona Odpowiedzialnoscia [2026] SGIPOS 10, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (“IPOS”) dismissed an opposition brought by the International Olympic Committee (“IOC”) against the registration of the mark ““

Ghows LLC successfully represented Olimp Laboratories Spolka Z Ograniczona Odpowiedzialnoscia, the Applicant. The opposition was dismissed on all three grounds, the Applicant’s mark was allowed to proceed to registration.

The decision is particularly interesting for what it says about the limits of protection afforded to exceptionally famous marks. The Registrar accepted that “OLYMPIC” and “THE OLYMPICS” are well known to the public at large in Singapore—a relatively rare status under Singapore trade mark law. Yet that reputation was not enough to prevent the Applicant from registering its mark.

The marks

The Applicant, a Polish pharmaceutical company which has operated since 1990, applied to register the mark ““ in Classes 5, 29 and 30 for nutritional supplements and enriched food preparations. The mark comprises the word “OLIMP”, the words “SPORT NUTRITION” and a prominent three-hexagon device.

The IOC relied on four earlier word marks:

• “OLYMPIAN”
• “OLYMPIAD”
• “OLYMPIC”
• “THE OLYMPICS”

It opposed the application under sections 8(2)(b), 8(4)(b)(ii) and 8(7)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, relying respectively on likelihood of confusion, the enhanced protection afforded to marks well known to the public at large, and passing off.

Assessing the mark as a whole

A significant issue was whether the comparison should effectively be reduced to “OLIMP” versus “OLYMP”.

The Registrar declined to approach the marks in that way.

Although “OLIMP” was a dominant element of the Applicant’s mark, the three-hexagon device was found to be equally significant. Its size, position and integration with the word “OLIMP” created what the Registrar described as a “unity of design”.

Further, the IOC had not established that “OLYMP” itself was the dominant or distinctive component of its earlier marks. The appropriate comparison therefore remained between the Applicant’s mark and the earlier marks as a whole. The Registrar also considered that the substitution of “I” for “Y” in OLIMP/OLYMP was sufficiently noticeable visually.

Ultimately, the marks were held to be visually similar only to a low degree, aurally similar to a moderate degree, and conceptually similar only to a low degree. Overall, the marks were similar, but only to a low degree.

The goods were found to be moderately similar. That, however, was not the end of the matter.

Fame does not automatically mean confusion

One of the more noteworthy parts of the decision concerns the IOC’s reputation.

The Registrar emphasised that the analysis is not simply “reputation-therefore-confusion”. A strong reputation does not invariably increase the likelihood of confusion; in an appropriate case, it may have the opposite effect.

On the evidence, the IOC had not established a strong reputation for its marks specifically in relation to the Class 5, 29 and 30 goods at issue. Its reputation was therefore treated as neutral for this purpose.

More strikingly, the Registrar held that even if the broader reputation of “OLYMPIC” and “THE OLYMPICS” were taken into account, their exceptional familiarity to Singapore consumers would actually point against confusion. Consumers familiar with those marks would be more, and not less, likely to notice the differences between them and the Application Mark.

The nature of the Applicant’s goods also mattered. Nutritional supplements and enriched food preparations are ingestible products selected for particular health, dietary, nutritional or recuperative purposes. The Registrar accepted the Applicant’s submission that consumers would therefore exercise greater care than they might when purchasing ordinary inexpensive consumer goods.

Taking the relevant factors together, the Registrar found no likelihood that consumers would mistake the marks for one another, or believe that goods sold under them originated from the same or economically connected sources. The section 8(2)(b) ground accordingly failed.

Based particularly on the extensive Singapore viewership of the Olympic Games and Singapore’s longstanding participation in them, the Registrar found that “OLYMPIC” and “THE OLYMPICS” were well known to the public at large in Singapore. However, the same conclusion could not be drawn for “OLYMPIAN” and “OLYMPIAD”.

That finding nevertheless did not determine the opposition.

To succeed under section 8(4)(b)(ii), the IOC still had to establish unfair dilution of, or unfair advantage taken from, the distinctive character of its famous marks.

The low degree of similarity between the competing marks proved important. The Registrar held that consumers were unlikely to form the necessary mental link between those marks and the Application Mark. The Application Mark was also found not to have been derived from the IOC’s marks. Without the requisite association, there was no unfair dilution.

Nor was the Registrar persuaded that the Applicant had obtained any advantage, much less an unfair advantage, by riding on the reputation of the IOC’s marks. The section 8(4)(b)(ii) ground therefore also failed.

The passing-off ground met a similar fate. Having already found no likelihood of confusion, the Registrar held that the necessary element of misrepresentation could not be established.

Reflection

The decision is a useful reminder that a mark may enjoy exceptional recognition, even recognition by the public at large, without acquiring a monopoly over every sign which contains a vaguely reminiscent string of letters or evokes a loosely related sporting concept.

It also underscores the importance of assessing composite marks as they are actually presented. A shared sequence of letters cannot automatically be isolated from the device elements, additional wording and overall impression of the later mark.

Perhaps most interestingly, reputation can cut both ways. A famous mark may have a broader sphere of protection in appropriate circumstances, but its very familiarity can also make consumers more capable of distinguishing it from a different mark.

As the Registrar ultimately observed, trade mark protection is extensive, but it is not infinite. On the facts of this case, the similarities between ““ and the IOC’s marks were simply too remote to justify preventing registration.

Ghows LLC represented Olimp Laboratories, the successful Applicant, with Millicent Lui appearing at the hearing.