Corrections relating to false statements of truth made by Mr Nicholas Tan and Aupen

1. On 9, 15 and 16 September 2025, Mr Tan revealed a sequence of false statements on Mr Tan’s interactions with the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore and its wholly owned subsidiary, IPOS International Pte Ltd (collectively “IPOS”), and Singapore’s commerce mark legal guidelines. These falsehoods have been communicated by means of Instagram Stories and Instagram posts (collectively the “Publications”) by means of his private Instagram account (@nicktandurian). One of the falsehoods was additionally communicated on Aupen’s official Instagram account (@aupenofficial). Aupen is a Singapore-registered enterprise based by Mr Tan.

2. At the related time, Aupen confronted a possible problem by United States (“U.S.”) retailer Target, towards a commerce mark utility within the U.S. by Aupen (“Potential U.S. Trade Mark Dispute”). 

3. The Publications communicated the next falsehoods:

   1. IPOS advised Mr Tan to not pursue a commerce mark dispute with Target in Singapore, as there was a excessive likelihood of shedding;

   2. Singapore’s commerce mark legal guidelines are designed to guard overseas companies and never native companies;

   3. IPOS advised Mr Tan that authorized reform to disallow dangerous religion commerce mark registrations in Singapore wouldn’t be attainable;

   4. IPOS gives assist to overseas corporations, and never native corporations, of their commerce mark disputes; and

   5. In IPOS’s media assertion dated 11 September 2025, IPOS flip-flopped on its recommendation to Mr Tan.

4. The falsehoods within the Publications threat undermining public confidence within the power of Singapore’s commerce mark regime and the impartiality of IPOS because the administrator of the regime and the Registry of Trade Marks. Further, the falsehoods give the damaging and deceptive impression that native companies mustn’t arise for his or her mental property rights towards overseas companies. 

Facts

A. IPOS didn’t inform Mr Tan to not pursue a commerce mark dispute with Target in Singapore or that he had a excessive likelihood of shedding in such a dispute.

5. In 2018, Target registered its “AUDEN” commerce mark within the U.S. and in Singapore, for various classes of merchandise.

6. In 2023, Aupen utilized to register its “AUPEN” commerce mark in Singapore and the U.S. The “AUPEN” commerce mark was efficiently registered in Singapore in 2023 and stays legitimate. No problem to the commerce mark has been filed in Singapore.

7. On 25 August 2025, Aupen’s official Instagram account (@aupenofficial) carried a publish about Target relaunching its “AUDEN” line of products in 2024 and promoting luggage that have been just like these bought by Aupen. The Instagram publish additionally confirmed a letter from Target to Aupen during which Target acknowledged that its prospects within the U.S. is perhaps confused by the “AUPEN” commerce mark given the similarities with Target’s “AUDEN” commerce mark, and sought data on Aupen’s present and supposed use of the “AUPEN” commerce mark.

8. Rights conferred by the registration of a commerce mark solely apply within the nation the place the commerce mark is registered. If Target proceeds to object to Aupen’s commerce mark utility for “AUPEN” within the U.S., the matter shall be heard within the U.S.

9. The Potential U.S. Trade Mark Dispute between Aupen and Target within the U.S. has and can have no impact on Aupen’s commerce mark registration in Singapore, which stays legitimate, except and till there’s a profitable problem in Singapore, whether or not by Target or some other occasion.

10. Upon studying from its 25 August 2025 Instagram publish that Aupen, a Singapore enterprise with a Singapore-registered commerce mark, was concerned within the Potential U.S. Trade Mark Dispute, IPOS initiated a gathering to supply assist. For instance, Singapore residents and everlasting residents and Singapore-registered companies who face potential IP points could also be referred to the IP Legal Clinic, which connects them with skilled IP legal professionals.

11. This assembly happened on 1 September 2025.

12. At the assembly, Mr Tan shared extra details about the Potential U.S. Trade Mark Dispute, together with that he was receiving authorized recommendation relating to it¹. As for Aupen’s “AUPEN” commerce mark in Singapore, IPOS reassured Mr Tan that it remained legitimate.

13. Going past defending Aupen’s commerce mark in Singapore, Mr Tan requested about counter-actions, together with revoking Target’s commerce marks in Singapore. In accordance with its customary follow, IPOS supplied basic data and issues, however didn’t present any authorized recommendation. Instead, IPOS inspired Mr Tan to hunt impartial authorized recommendation to know the choices, dangers and related prices. IPOS didn’t at any time advise Mr Tan towards pursuing a commerce mark dispute with Target, nor did they advise on his probabilities of succeeding in such a dispute. IPOS doesn’t present authorized recommendation on potential disputes, for which companies ought to interact impartial authorized counsel.

B. Singapore’s commerce mark legal guidelines are supposed to make sure equal and truthful entry for all companies searching for commerce mark safety in Singapore.

14. As the nationwide IP authority, IPOS’s features embody administering the techniques in Singapore for the safety of IP rights and selling public consciousness and efficient use of IP rights. IPOS is dedicated to administering an IP regime that’s strong, clear and impartial. It is neither within the mandate of our IP regime, which is globally recognised, nor in IPOS’s curiosity to prioritise any explicit enterprise over one other in any dispute between them. 

15. Singapore’s IP legal guidelines search to make sure equal and truthful entry for all companies searching for IP safety in Singapore. In line with this, Singapore’s commerce mark registration regime doesn’t differentiate between overseas and native companies. Any enterprise, whether or not overseas or native, could register their commerce marks at IPOS earlier than commencing commerce in Singapore. All functions for registration bear the identical examination course of at IPOS to make sure that the applying meets the statutory standards for registration.²

16. Far from preferring overseas companies over native companies, IPOS works actively to advertise IP safety for Singapore companies to assist them develop and broaden globally, together with launching the GoBusiness IP Grow platform in 2023 and providing complimentary consultations with IP strategists to assist companies perceive and handle their intangible belongings. More data could be discovered at: ipos.gov.sg/manage-ip/resources/for-enterprises.

C. IPOS didn’t inform Mr Tan that authorized reform to disallow dangerous religion commerce mark registrations in Singapore wouldn’t be attainable.

17. At the 1 September assembly, Mr Tan expressed issues about overseas companies that had registered commerce marks in Singapore regardless of not working right here. Mr Tan additionally requested how he may foyer for a change in Singapore’s regulation.

18. In line with its regular method to such suggestions, IPOS knowledgeable Mr Tan that he may write to IPOS along with his views, and that any legislative change would take time. IPOS didn’t inform Mr Tan that authorized reform wouldn’t be attainable, be it authorized reform with respect to dangerous religion commerce mark registration or authorized reform basically.

19. In truth, Singapore’s commerce mark legal guidelines already prohibit the registration of commerce marks made in dangerous religion. Registrations made in dangerous religion embody these which have been dishonestly made, or are thought of to be commercially unacceptable by business.

D. In commerce mark disputes earlier than IPOS, IPOS treats all events equally and pretty.

20. IPOS conducts hearings for sure disputes involving the registration of commerce marks in Singapore, relying on the authorized points raised. In this position, IPOS additionally doesn’t intervene on behalf of any occasion and treats all companies in a impartial method no matter their nation of origin.³

21. Further, as a part of enterprise engagement, IPOS helps native companies by serving to them navigate IP challenges and alternatives, and connecting them with service suppliers corresponding to IP legal professionals and IP administration consultants.⁴

E. IPOS’s Media Statement units out what IPOS communicated to Mr Tan relating to the Potential U.S. Trade Mark Dispute.

22. On 11 September 2025, IPOS issued a Media Statement⁵ addressing false and deceptive statements reported in numerous media shops relating to the 1 September assembly and as posted by Mr Tan on 9 September 2025 on his social media account. IPOS’s Media Statement displays what IPOS conveyed to Mr Tan on the 1 September assembly. IPOS’s Media Statement clarified that IPOS didn’t advise Mr Tan towards pursuing a commerce mark dispute with Target or that he had a excessive likelihood of shedding in such a dispute. The Media Statement additionally clarified that IPOS didn’t inform Mr Tan that permitting Target to register its commerce marks in Singapore, regardless that it doesn’t function right here was according to the mandate to make Singapore enticing for overseas funding.

23. Instead of clarifying the falsehoods thereafter, Mr Tan made his 16 September social media publish insinuating that IPOS flip-flopped on its recommendation to Mr Tan. The insinuation is that IPOS’s Media Statement is fake or inaccurate and that Mr Tan’s account is true.

24. The information of the dialogue with Mr Tan are coated above at paragraphs 12, 13, 17 and 18.  The truth is that Mr Tan already sought authorized recommendation for the Potential U.S. Trade Mark Dispute. While IPOS does supply assist to Singapore companies to navigate IP challenges and alternatives, as a impartial company IPOS didn’t encourage or discourage Mr Tan on any motion that he wished to take with regard to any potential dispute. 

F. Conclusion

25. Mr Tan’s posts not solely have the impact of attracting publicity for himself and Aupen, however additionally they denigrate IPOS’s impartiality and neutrality, in addition to the integrity of IPOS and its officers. Unless corrected, these falsehoods will erode the general public’s belief in IPOS, our IP legal guidelines and our public establishments basically.

26. The Minister for Law and Second Minister for Home Affairs has instructed the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (“POFMA”) Office to situation Correction Directions to Mr Tan and Aupen in respect of their posts, which have been eliminated. The Correction Directions require the recipients to place up a brand new publish with a hyperlink to the Government’s clarification.

¹ As of the date of publication of this text, the Potential U.S. Trade Mark Dispute has not occurred.

² https://www.ipos.gov.sg/about-ip/trade-marks/how-to-register/ 

³ https://www.ipos.gov.sg/manage-ip/resolveip-disputes-overview/resolveip-disputes 

⁴ GoBusiness IP Grow

⁵ Media Statement by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore | Intellectual Property Office of Singapore