SUNRISE PLUS PTE. LTD. v THE SUNRIDER CORPORATION DBA SUNRIDER INTERNATIONAL

Facts

Sunrise Plus (Pte) Ltd applied to register a "Sunrise" mark with a sun device in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 35, under Trade Mark Applications No. 40201816175S-02 (Class 5, covering nutritional and dietary supplements, vitamins and similar goods) and 40201816175S-01 (Classes 29, 30 and 35, including retail services for health foods and supplements). The Sunrider Corporation, trading as Sunrider International, opposed, relying on its earlier registered mark T9300374C for "Herbal drinks included in Class 5".

The Principal Assistant Registrar of the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore allowed the opposition against the Class 5 application and the Class 35 portion of the multi-class application under ss 8(2)(b) and 8(7)(a) of the Trade Marks Act 1998. She found no similarity for Classes 29 and 30, but because an opposition cannot succeed in part within a multi-class application, the whole of that application was refused. Sunrise Plus appealed to the General Division of the High Court in Tribunal Appeal No 1 of 2025. It did not challenge the finding that the marks were similar, but argued that the goods and services were not similar, that there was no likelihood of confusion, and that the passing off ground was not made out.

Issues

1. Whether supplements in Class 5 and the retail services in Class 35 were similar to herbal drinks in Class 5
2. Whether there was a likelihood of confusion under s 8(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act
3. Whether the opponent had established goodwill and misrepresentation for the passing off ground under s 8(7)(a)

Holding

The High Court allowed the appeal in part. It allowed the appeal on the passing off ground under s 8(7)(a) but dismissed it on the earlier registered mark ground under s 8(2)(b), so Trade Mark Application No. 40201816175S-02 and 40201816175S-01 in Class 5 and 35 could not proceed to registration. Parties unable to agree on costs were to file written submissions of not more than seven pages within a week.

Reasoning

On similarity of goods, the applicant argued that nutritional supplements fill gaps in vitamins and minerals, which herbs do not. Applying the ordinary and natural meaning required by Staywell, the court found dictionary definitions of nutrition and nutritional supplements far wider and not limited to vitamins and minerals. Herbal drinks in Class 5 would at least have health benefits, so their uses overlapped with supplements. The users factor stayed neutral, since some consumers simply seek health products. For Class 35, following Guccitech, goods can be similar to retail services for those goods, and the court saw no principled basis for the limits the applicant suggested.

On likelihood of confusion, the court agreed the marks were highly similar, with the word "Sunrise" dominant and not shown to be of low distinctiveness in Class 5. The applicant's claimed reputation in the sports business, its points about separate trade channels and its claim of an industry practice of distinct product marks were unsupported by evidence. Given the high similarity of marks and goods, confusion was likely; even a medium similarity of goods would have sufficed.

On passing off, the court held that having a manufacturing plant in Singapore did not by itself establish goodwill in the product, following Future Enterprises. The opponent's sales table was self-compiled without supporting documents, and its evidence of online and shop sales post-dated the relevant date of 16 August 2018. Without goodwill, misrepresentation could not be established, so this ground failed.

From the judgment