US tech giant Apple fails to block S. Korean firm from registering ‘Wapples’ trademark in S’pore

SINGAPORE – US technology giant Apple has failed in its bid to block a South Korean security systems company from registering “Wapples” as a trademark in Singapore.

This comes after the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (Ipos) ruled on Dec 18, 2024, that Apple and “Wapples” are conceptually dissimilar and there was no reasonable likelihood of confusion between both trademarks.

On Dec 3, 2021, South Korean information technology (IT) security company Penta Security filed an application in Singapore to register the trademark “Wapples”.

The company was incorporated in South Korea in 1997 and provides IT, internet and data security products and services.

Products under the “Wapples” trademark were developed to protect web applications and application programming interfaces, or APIs, from unauthorised access and cyber attacks.

These products were first released in South Korea in 2005 and subsequently distributed in Singapore in 2010.

Apple objected to Penta Security’s application.

Penta Security’s application and Apple’s objection came before Ipos, which had to decide on the merits of Apple’s objection.

“When a common word in the English language is incorporated into an invented word, what is the impact on public perception? The parties in this case take starkly opposing positions on the question,” said principal assistant registrar See Tho Sok Yee in her written decision on the case in December 2024.

“Apple” is the common English word that the US technology giant trademarked in Singapore as early as 1982, while “Wapples” is a word invented by Penta Security.

Under Singapore’s Trade Marks Act, a trademark shall not be registered if it is similar to an earlier registered trademark and there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public.

The Singapore courts take a three-step approach to decide on the similarities of trademarks and the likelihood of confusion.

First, they assess whether the respective trademarks are similar.

Next, they consider whether there are similarities between the goods or services represented by the trademarks.

As a third and final step, they determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion from the trademarks and similarities of the goods or services.

In its court papers, Apple argued that “Wapples” and Apple are visually similar. It submitted that Apple is the dominant and distinctive component, as the letters A-P-P-L-E are common to both marks.

Ms See Tho disagreed with Apple’s arguments. She held that “Wapples” and Apple are not visually similar.

“Wapples” is seen as a whole and not selectively incorporating the five letters “A-P-P-L-E” within it, she wrote in her decision. The consumer would view the trademark as “Wapples”, and Apple’s “proposition on how the mark would be visually perceived, on the other hand, is contrived and unrealistic”.

On aural similarity, Apple had argued that consumers may disregard the letter W and pronounce “Wapples” as “apples”, or may pronounce the invented word as “wear-apples”, both of which are similar to “apple”.

On this, Ms See Tho disagreed with Apple as well.

She said: “The first letter ‘W’ is so tied up with the (trademark) as a whole that the consumer is unlikely to separate the following vowel ‘A’ from ‘W’ and link ‘A’ to ‘P-P-L-E-S’ (to make the sound “apples”) in pronunciation.

“The consumer is instead more likely to say ‘warpples’, which rhymes with the known word ‘waffles’.”

Ms See Tho added that “apple” and “Wapples” are conceptually dissimilar as well.

“The former is a plain, simple English word referring to the apple, a fruit. The latter is invented, and has no meaning. There is therefore no conceptual comparison to begin with,” she wrote in her decision.

The principal assistant registrar also found that Apple’s strong reputation in its branding makes it less likely for consumers to be confused.

“(The) nature of the goods in issue, such as computers and computer software, tends to involve a considered process of selection and purchase on the part of consumers such that confusion is less likely to occur,” she noted.

She added: “(Wapples) is an invented word, and is, on its own merit, distinctive and dominant as a whole. The fact that it contains the letters ‘A-P-P-L-E’ is incidental and does not offend the sensibilities of ‘ordinary persons adopting proper standards’.”

Her decision paves the way for Penta Security to proceed with the registration of “Wapples” as a protected trademark in Singapore.

Penta Security was represented by Marks & Clerk Singapore LLP and Apple was represented by Wong & Leow LLC.

This is the latest in a string of cases by the US tech giant to protect its intellectual property in Singapore.

In August 2018, it failed to stop Swiss watch company Swatch from registering “Tick Different” as a trademark, which Apple had argued segues too closely to its own “Think Different” trademark.

But, in January 2019, it successfully registered its “iWatch” trademark in Singapore after Ipos ruled against Swatch’s opposition.