Corrections regarding false statements of fact made by Mr Nicholas Tan and Aupen

1. On 9, 15 and 16 September 2025, Mr Tan published a series 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 trade mark laws. These falsehoods were communicated by way of Instagram Stories and Instagram posts (collectively the “Publications”) through his personal Instagram account (@nicktandurian). One of the falsehoods was also communicated on Aupen’s official Instagram account (@aupenofficial). Aupen is a Singapore-registered business founded by Mr Tan.

2. At the relevant time, Aupen faced a potential challenge by United States (“U.S.”) retailer Target, against a trade mark application in the U.S. by Aupen (“Potential U.S. Trade Mark Dispute”). 

3. The Publications communicated the following falsehoods:

   1. IPOS told Mr Tan not to pursue a trade mark dispute with Target in Singapore, as there was a high chance of losing;

   2. Singapore’s trade mark laws are designed to protect foreign businesses and not local businesses;

   3. IPOS told Mr Tan that legal reform to disallow bad faith trade mark registrations in Singapore would not be possible;

   4. IPOS provides support to foreign companies, and not local companies, in their trade mark disputes; and

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

4. The falsehoods in the Publications risk undermining public confidence in the strength of Singapore’s trade mark regime and the impartiality of IPOS as the administrator of the regime and the Registry of Trade Marks. Further, the falsehoods give the damaging and misleading impression that local businesses should not stand up for their intellectual property rights against foreign businesses. 

Facts

A. IPOS did not tell Mr Tan not to pursue a trade mark dispute with Target in Singapore or that he had a high chance of losing in such a dispute.

5. In 2018, Target registered its “AUDEN” trade mark in the U.S. and in Singapore, for different categories of products.

6. In 2023, Aupen applied to register its “AUPEN” trade mark in Singapore and the U.S. The “AUPEN” trade mark was successfully registered in Singapore in 2023 and remains valid. No challenge to the trade mark has been filed in Singapore.

7. On 25 August 2025, Aupen’s official Instagram account (@aupenofficial) carried a post about Target relaunching its “AUDEN” line of goods in 2024 and selling bags that were similar to those sold by Aupen. The Instagram post also showed a letter from Target to Aupen in which Target stated that its customers in the U.S. might be confused by the “AUPEN” trade mark given the similarities with Target’s “AUDEN” trade mark, and sought information on Aupen’s current and intended use of the “AUPEN” trade mark.

8. Rights conferred by the registration of a trade mark only apply in the country where the trade mark is registered. If Target proceeds to object to Aupen’s trade mark application for “AUPEN” in the U.S., the matter will be heard in the U.S.

9. The Potential U.S. Trade Mark Dispute between Aupen and Target in the U.S. has and will have no effect on Aupen’s trade mark registration in Singapore, which remains valid, unless and until there is a successful challenge in Singapore, whether by Target or any other party.

10. Upon learning from its 25 August 2025 Instagram post that Aupen, a Singapore business with a Singapore-registered trade mark, was involved in the Potential U.S. Trade Mark Dispute, IPOS initiated a meeting to offer support. For example, Singapore citizens and permanent residents and Singapore-registered businesses who face potential IP issues may be referred to the IP Legal Clinic, which connects them with experienced IP lawyers.

11. This meeting took place on 1 September 2025.

12. At the meeting, Mr Tan shared more information about the Potential U.S. Trade Mark Dispute, including that he was receiving legal advice regarding it¹. As for Aupen’s “AUPEN” trade mark in Singapore, IPOS reassured Mr Tan that it remained valid.

13. Going beyond protecting Aupen’s trade mark in Singapore, Mr Tan asked about counter-actions, including revoking Target’s trade marks in Singapore. In accordance with its standard practice, IPOS provided general information and considerations, but did not provide any legal advice. Instead, IPOS encouraged Mr Tan to seek independent legal advice to understand the options, risks and associated costs. IPOS did not at any time advise Mr Tan against pursuing a trade mark dispute with Target, nor did they advise on his chances of succeeding in such a dispute. IPOS does not provide legal advice on potential disputes, for which businesses should engage independent legal counsel.

B. Singapore’s trade mark laws are intended to ensure equal and fair access for all businesses seeking trade mark protection in Singapore.

14. As the national IP authority, IPOS’s functions include administering the systems in Singapore for the protection of IP rights and promoting public awareness and effective use of IP rights. IPOS is committed to administering an IP regime that is robust, transparent and neutral. It is neither in the mandate of our IP regime, which is globally recognised, nor in IPOS’s interest to prioritise any particular business over another in any dispute between them. 

15. Singapore’s IP laws seek to ensure equal and fair access for all businesses seeking IP protection in Singapore. In line with this, Singapore’s trade mark registration regime does not differentiate between foreign and local businesses. Any business, whether foreign or local, may register their trade marks at IPOS before commencing trade in Singapore. All applications for registration undergo the same examination process at IPOS to ensure that the application meets the statutory criteria for registration.²

16. Far from preferring foreign businesses over local businesses, IPOS works actively to promote IP protection for Singapore businesses to help them grow and expand globally, including launching the GoBusiness IP Grow platform in 2023 and offering complimentary consultations with IP strategists to help businesses understand and manage their intangible assets. More information can be found at: ipos.gov.sg/manage-ip/resources/for-enterprises.

C. IPOS did not tell Mr Tan that legal reform to disallow bad faith trade mark registrations in Singapore would not be possible.

17. At the 1 September meeting, Mr Tan expressed concerns about foreign businesses that had registered trade marks in Singapore despite not operating here. Mr Tan also asked how he could lobby for a change in Singapore’s law.

18. In line with its usual approach to such feedback, IPOS informed Mr Tan that he could write to IPOS with his views, and that any legislative change would take time. IPOS did not tell Mr Tan that legal reform would not be possible, be it legal reform with respect to bad faith trade mark registration or legal reform in general.

19. In fact, Singapore’s trade mark laws already prohibit the registration of trade marks made in bad faith. Registrations made in bad faith include those which were dishonestly made, or are considered to be commercially unacceptable by industry.

D. In trade mark disputes before IPOS, IPOS treats all parties equally and fairly.

20. IPOS conducts hearings for certain disputes involving the registration of trade marks in Singapore, depending on the legal issues raised. In this role, IPOS also does not intervene on behalf of any party and treats all businesses in a neutral manner regardless of their country of origin.³

21. Further, as part of enterprise engagement, IPOS supports local businesses by helping them navigate IP challenges and opportunities, and connecting them with service providers such as IP lawyers and IP management consultants.⁴

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

22. On 11 September 2025, IPOS issued a Media Statement⁵ addressing false and misleading statements reported in various media outlets regarding the 1 September meeting and as posted by Mr Tan on 9 September 2025 on his social media account. IPOS’s Media Statement reflects what IPOS conveyed to Mr Tan at the 1 September meeting. IPOS’s Media Statement clarified that IPOS did not advise Mr Tan against pursuing a trade mark dispute with Target or that he had a high chance of losing in such a dispute. The Media Statement also clarified that IPOS did not tell Mr Tan that allowing Target to register its trade marks in Singapore, even though it does not operate here was in line with the mandate to make Singapore attractive for foreign investment.

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

24. The facts of the discussion with Mr Tan are covered above at paragraphs 12, 13, 17 and 18.  The fact is that Mr Tan already sought legal advice for the Potential U.S. Trade Mark Dispute. While IPOS does offer help to Singapore businesses to navigate IP challenges and opportunities, as a neutral agency IPOS did not encourage or discourage Mr Tan on any action that he wished to take with regard to any potential dispute. 

F. Conclusion

25. Mr Tan’s posts not only have the effect of attracting publicity for himself and Aupen, but they also denigrate IPOS’s impartiality and neutrality, as well as the integrity of IPOS and its officers. Unless corrected, these falsehoods will erode the public’s trust in IPOS, our IP laws and our public institutions in general.

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

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

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