In BEABA v Biba (Zhejiang) Nursing Products Co.,
Ltd [2022] SGIPOS 5, BEABA successfully opposed Biba
(Zhejiang) Nursing Products Co.'s ("Biba")
applications for a stylised BEABA mark on various grounds,
including bad faith. This update focusses on the bad faith ground
of opposition and how an inference of bad faith can potentially be
drawn from circumstantial evidence.
Background
The marks which Biba and BEABA relied on are:
Similarities in marks and goods
Before delving into the allegation of bad faith, the Registrar
first determined that the registered marks were visually similar
and aurally and conceptually identical.
Biba's class 5 goods (e.g. diapers) and BEABA's class 21
goods (e.g. potties) were also considered similar. However,
Biba's class 16 goods were distinguishable from all of
BEABA's goods.
