IPOS dismissed Merck KGaA's opposition to Pfizer's "ABRYSVO" vaccine trademark, ruling the two brands overall dissimilar despite shared circular logos.
Singapore’s Intellectual Property Office (IPOS) has dismissed a trademark opposition filed by German drugmaker Merck KGaA against Pfizer’s “ABRYSVO” vaccine trademark, ruling the two brands are overall dissimilar despite both featuring circular logos. Pfizer’s trademark can now proceed to registration.
Background of the dispute
ABRYSVO is the brand name for Pfizer’s vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), first adopted in the United States in 2023 and sold in Singapore from around January 2025. When Pfizer sought to register the ABRYSVO trademark for vaccines in Singapore, Merck KGaA opposed the application, arguing it was too visually similar to Merck’s own registered trademark, MAVENCLAD — the brand name for a prescription medicine used to treat multiple sclerosis.
The case was decided by principal assistant registrar Tan Mei Lin, with the written decision released by IPOS on May 18, 2026.
Merck's core argument
Merck’s opposition centred on the circular logos accompanying both trademarks, which it argued were visually similar because each was made up of arcs arranged concentrically. Merck further contended that MAVENCLAD — which it said combined “maven” (meaning an expert or connoisseur) with “clad” — was an unfamiliar enough word that consumers would focus more attention on the accompanying circular logo than on the word itself, making the logo similarity more significant.
Why the registrar rejected the comparison
The registrar found that in both trademarks, it was the word elements — ABRYSVO and MAVENCLAD — rather than the logos, that formed the dominant and distinctive components consumers would rely on. She disagreed with Merck’s characterisation of MAVENCLAD as easily overlooked, describing it instead as a long word rendered in large, clear font with a high degree of technical distinctiveness in its own right.
On the logos themselves, the decision found the circular designs were simple devices that evoke no particular concept for the average consumer, and were more likely to be perceived as decorative elements rather than as indicators of commercial origin — undermining Merck’s argument that the shared circular design created a meaningful risk of confusion.
The registrar also dismissed Merck’s argument that the shared letters “A” and “V” made the words visually similar, finding the letters that didn’t coincide between the two words far outnumbered the ones that did, and that the words began and ended with entirely different letters.
Aural and conceptual comparison
Both parties agreed the trademarks were aurally dissimilar when spoken. The registrar further found them conceptually neutral, since both ABRYSVO and MAVENCLAD are invented words carrying no inherent meaning.
Outcome
Having found the trademarks “overall, dissimilar,” the registrar held it was unnecessary to proceed to a further confusion inquiry — the legal test for assessing whether consumers might mistakenly believe two brands are commercially linked. Merck’s remaining arguments, including that Pfizer’s trademark would falsely suggest a connection to Merck’s products and amounted to passing off, were also rejected.
With the opposition dismissed on every ground raised, Pfizer’s ABRYSVO trademark application can now proceed to registration in Singapore. The registrar ordered Merck to pay Pfizer S$10,682.70 in costs and disbursements.
Source: Written decision of the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS), released May 18, 2026.
Legal Analysis: How Trademark Similarity Is Assessed Under Singapore Law
The three-step framework courts and IPOS actually apply
Trademark oppositions in Singapore under Section 8(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act are governed by the “step-by-step approach” set out by the Court of Appeal in the landmark case Staywell Hospitality Group v Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide [2014] 1 SLR 911. The opponent must establish, in strict sequence:
- Similarity of marks
- Similarity of goods or services
- A resulting likelihood of confusion, assessed in the round
Crucially, the first two steps are threshold requirements. If an opponent cannot establish that the marks themselves are similar, the inquiry stops there — the tribunal does not go on to assess confusion at all, no matter how closely related the goods or services might be. This is exactly what happened in the Pfizer-Merck case: once ABRYSVO and MAVENCLAD were found “overall dissimilar,” the confusion inquiry became unnecessary.
How "similarity of marks" itself is assessed
Within that first step, Singapore courts assess three distinct aspects: visual, aural, and conceptual similarity. These three aspects function as signposts for the tribunal’s evaluation, not as a checklist requiring unanimous agreement — a tribunal isn’t required to find similarity (or dissimilarity) across all three before reaching a conclusion; it weighs each aspect and reaches an overall assessment.
Visual similarity typically begins with identifying the dominant and distinctive component of each mark — a step the Pfizer case turned on directly. Even where a mark includes both a word element and a logo, one component can be found dominant even if it never appears on its own; case law has repeatedly treated the textual element as dominant over an accompanying circular device, exactly as the registrar did in finding ABRYSVO and MAVENCLAD’s word elements — not their circular logos — to be what consumers would actually rely on.
Aural similarity concerns how the marks sound when spoken. In the Pfizer case, this element was resolved by agreement between the parties — both sides accepted the marks were aurally dissimilar.
Conceptual similarity asks whether the marks evoke a shared idea or meaning. Invented words with no inherent meaning — as both ABRYSVO and MAVENCLAD were found to be — are typically treated as conceptually neutral, neither similar nor dissimilar, since there’s no shared concept for a consumer to connect them by.
Why a shared logo style isn't enough on its own
A recurring principle in Singapore case law, illustrated clearly in this case, is that simple decorative devices — such as a circular design made of arcs — will often be treated as carrying limited independent distinctiveness, particularly where the tribunal finds an average consumer is more likely to view them as decoration than as an indicator of commercial origin. This means an opponent cannot succeed merely by pointing to a superficially similar visual motif; they need to show the dominant component of the marks — usually the word — is itself similar.
Likewise, shared individual letters between two words are not, by themselves, sufficient to establish visual similarity. Tribunals look at the overall structure: how many letters coincide versus don’t, and critically, whether the words begin and end similarly. In this case, the marks’ non-coinciding letters “far outnumbered” the coinciding ones, and the words began and ended differently — a combination that reliably defeats a visual-similarity claim built on partial letter overlap.
Why this framework matters beyond pharmaceutical branding
This case is a useful illustration for any business developing or defending a trademark, not just in the life sciences sector, because it shows how Singapore’s step-by-step approach protects genuinely distinctive word marks even against opponents with an established, recognisable visual brand identity. A company cannot block a competitor’s registration simply by showing both marks share a decorative visual theme (like a circular logo) — the analysis will almost always come back to whether the dominant, distinctive components — usually the words themselves — are actually similar.
The bottom line
Singapore’s trademark-opposition framework is structured, sequential, and threshold-based: marks similarity must be established before goods/services similarity or confusion is even considered, and within that first step, word elements typically outweigh decorative visual elements unless those decorative elements themselves carry independent distinctiveness. This case reaffirms that a shared visual “family resemblance” — without a correspondingly similar word mark — is unlikely to succeed in blocking a new trademark registration.
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Trademark opposition outcomes depend heavily on the specific marks, goods, and evidence involved; consult a qualified intellectual property lawyer to assess your situation.