Jurisdiction - Singapore
Reports and Analysis
Singapore – Angry Birds And Angry Bite.

2 September, 2014


Legal News & Analysis – Asia Pacific – Singapore – Intellectual Property


Trade Mark Application No. T1204840G “ANGRY BITE” and Device in the name of Kimanis Food Industries and Opposition by Rovio Entertainment Limited [2014] SGIPOS 10


Kimanis Food Industries Sdn Bhd (“Applicant“) applied for the registration of the “ANGRY BITE” and device mark in Class 30 in relation to, inter alia, snack. Below is a representation of the mark. 




The application was accepted and was published on 6 July 2012. Rovio Entertainment Ltd (“Opponent“), the proprietor of the device mark:




as well as the word mark “ANGRY BIRDS” (“Opposing Marks“), opposed the registration of the Applicant’s mark. The Opposing Marks have been registered in Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 43. The opposition was heard before the Principal Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks. At the onset, the Applicant declared that it was inspired by the Angry Birds game. The Opponent submitted that, although separately registered, the Opponent uses a combination of both the “ANGRY BIRDS” word mark and the bird device mark on their products as a composite mark. The Opponent submitted that the similarity arising from the use of the similar “ANGRY BITE” combination of words with the similar “angry face device” inspired by the Opponents’ Angry Birds characters on identical or closely similar goods provides ample ground for finding there is a sufficient likelihood of confusion.


In reply, the Applicant submitted that to examine the issue of similarity of marks, one does not take into account any external added matter or circumstances and the comparison should be mark for mark. The Applicant cited The Infamous Nut Co Ltd’s Trade Marks [2003] RPC 7 at [36] where it was held that if the opponent relies on proprietorship of more than one earlier trade mark, the registrability of the applicant’s mark must be considered against each of the opponent’s earlier trade marks separately. Hence, in the current case, the Opponent should not be permitted to combine both their marks in the comparison test for similarity.


In dismissing the opposition, the Principal Assistant Registrar held that it was not appropriate to compare the Applicant’s Mark as against the Opposing Marks as a composite mark. According to the Principal Assistant Registrar, it is the Opponent’s mark, as registered individually, which is in question. Hence, each registered trade mark, which is a property right and is granted the rights and remedies under the act in itself, should be treated separately on its own.


ATMD Bird & Bird


For further information, please contact:


Cyril Chua, Partner, ATMD Bird & Bird

[email protected]


ATMD Bird & Bird Intellectual Property Practice Profile in Singapore


Homegrown Intellectual Property Law Firms in Singapore 


Comments are closed.