SINGAPORE – Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer has successfully defended its Singapore trademark application for a vaccine brand after its bid was opposed by German drugmaker Merck KGaA, which claimed visual similarities to one of its drug brands.
Merck KGaA’s challenge against the American company’s attempt to register the “ABRYSVO” trademark for vaccines for human use in Singapore was dismissed by principal assistant registrar Tan Mei Lin in a written decision released by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) on May 18.
The ABRYSVO brand is used for Pfizer’s vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), which was first adopted in the United States in 2023 and sold in Singapore around January 2025.
The dispute before IPOS involved whether Pfizer’s “ABRYSVO” trademark and logo were too similar to Merck’s existing “MAVENCLAD” trademark and circular logo, which is used for a prescription medicine treating multiple sclerosis.
Merck argued that the two trademarks were visually similar because both featured circular logos made up of arcs arranged concentrically.
The registrar, however, found that the dominant and distinctive components of the competing trademarks were their word elements – ABRYSVO and MAVENCLAD – rather than the logos themselves.
Merck also argued that MAVENCLAD, which it said combined the words “maven”, meaning an expert or connoisseur, and “clad”, was unfamiliar enough that consumers would pay greater attention to the circular logo.
The registrar disagreed, describing “MAVENCLAD” as a “long” word displayed in a “large and clear” font that possessed “a high degree of technical distinctiveness”.
The judgment also said the circular logos were simple devices that “evoke no particular concept for the average consumer” and were more likely to be seen as “a decorative element rather than as an element indicating commercial origin”.
Rejecting Merck’s argument that the trademarks were visually similar because both words contained the letters “A” and “V”, the registrar noted that the common letters alone were insufficient because the words differed significantly in structure and appearance.
The judgment said the non-coinciding letters “far outnumber the coinciding ones”, while the words also began and ended with “completely different letters”.
The parties agreed that the trademarks were aurally dissimilar, while the registrar found them conceptually neutral because both were invented words with no inherent meaning.
The registrar ultimately concluded that the competing trademarks were “overall, dissimilar”.
On that basis, she said it was unnecessary to proceed further with the confusion inquiry, which is a legal assessment of whether consumers might mistakenly believe the two brands were linked.
Merck’s additional arguments – including claims that Pfizer’s trademark would wrongly suggest a connection to Merck’s products and amount to passing off – were also rejected.
With the opposition failing on all grounds, Pfizer’s trademark application can proceed to registration in Singapore.
The registrar also ordered Merck to pay Pfizer S$10,682.70 in costs and disbursements.
