In Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag v Tianrong Co Ltd [2025] SGIPOS 1, Tianrong Co., Ltd (Tianrong) successfully defended an opposition filed by Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag (Essity). We take a closer look at why Tianrong’s 
mark was found to be dissimilar to Essity’s “TENA” marks, and other key points of the decision.
Dissimilarity in the marks
Essity relied on registrations for its word mark TENA and its stylised marks 
and 
, arguing that these marks are confusingly similar to Tianrong’s mark.
The Adjudicator found:
- There is a high level of visual dissimilarity, noting the Applicant’s mark is in red, and the stylisation of the letter “E” produces a resemblance to the Chinese character for “three” (i.e. “三”). Moreover, the Opponent’s and marks contain distinguishing blue and green stylised elements.
- There is a medium level of aural similarity arising from the first syllable “TEN” and the possibility of consumers slurring the second syllables.
- There is no conceptual similarity, as the respective marks do not convey any meaning or idea.
On balance, the Adjudicator concluded that the marks are dissimilar.
Toiletry goods distinguished by purpose
The finding of dissimilarity in the marks was sufficient for the Adjudicator to dismiss Essity’s ground of opposition based on registered rights. Nevertheless, the Adjudicator confirmed (in the interest of completeness) that certain goods are similar, including Tianrong’s babies’ diapers and Essity’s incontinence diapers.
As to the Class 3 goods, which Essity argued are “broadly classified as personal hygiene products”, the Adjudicator concluded that skin lotion is not similar to shampoo, because the former is “applied to the skin to protect it, improve it or make it smell better” whereas the latter is “used for cleaning hair”.
Consumer attention
The Adjudicator also commented that toiletry goods (particularly skin lotions, shampoos, incontinence pads and pants) are highly personal self-care products to which consumers pay greater attention when purchasing.
Other grounds of opposition
Essity’s other grounds of opposition were also dismissed, in part because of the finding of dissimilarity in the marks, and also because Essity did not establish that its TENA marks are well known in Singapore, or that Tianrong had filed its application in bad faith.
Takeaways & wider implications
This case demonstrates that distinguishing stylisation can outweigh the similarity arising from common elements in the respective marks. However, this may ultimately depend on the degree of stylisation and if it changes a consumer’s perception of the mark, which is also influenced by the nature of the goods/services and surrounding circumstances.
If you have any questions about trade mark protection, please contact us at mail@dcc.com, or Benita Lau (Blau@dcc.com).