Singapore bag brand Aupen and founder issued POFMA correction orders over allegations about intellectual property authority

SINGAPORE: Singapore handbag brand Aupen and its founder Nicholas Tan have been issued correction directions under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) for allegations made about Singapore's intellectual property authority.

Mr Tan published multiple allegations about the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) on his Instagram account on Sep 9, Sep 15 and Sep 16. The Sep 15 post was also published on Aupen's Instagram page.

These Instagram posts and stories contained "false statements of fact" about IPOS' interactions with them, the stance IPOS takes towards local businesses, and the design of Singapore’s trademark laws, the Ministry of Law said on Monday (Sep 22).

Minister for Law and Second Minister for Home Affairs Edwin Tong has instructed the POFMA Office to issue the correction directions to Mr Tan and Aupen. IPOS is a statutory board under the Ministry of Law.

"Mr Tan’s posts not only have the effect of attracting publicity for himself and Aupen, but they also denigrate IPOS’ impartiality and neutrality, as well as the integrity of IPOS and its officers," said an article on the government's fact-checking website Factually.

"Unless corrected, these falsehoods will erode the public’s trust in IPOS, our IP laws and our public institutions in general."

The article noted that the posts in question have been removed. The correction directions require Mr Tan and Aupen to put up a new post with a link to the government's clarification.

As of noon on Monday, the posts have not gone up on the Instagram accounts of Mr Tan or Aupen.

FALSEHOODS

Aupen was founded in 2022. The fashion brand is known for its asymmetrical leather handbags, which have been carried by several A-list celebrities, including Taylor Swift, Beyonce and Kylie Jenner.

According to the Factually article, Aupen faced a potential challenge by US retailer Target, against a trademark application in the US by Aupen.

The publications by Mr Tan and Aupen communicated the following falsehoods: IPOS told Mr Tan not to pursue a trademark dispute with Target in Singapore, as there was a high chance of losing and Singapore’s trademark laws are designed to protect foreign businesses and not local businesses.

The publications also falsely claimed IPOS told Mr Tan that legal reform to disallow bad faith trademark registrations in Singapore would not be possible; that IPOS provides support to foreign companies, and not local companies, in their trademark disputes; and in IPOS’ media statement dated Sep 11, IPOS flip-flopped on its advice to Mr Tan.

“The falsehoods in the publications risk undermining public confidence in the strength of Singapore’s trademark 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,” said the Factually article.

TIMELINE

Laying out the facts of the case, the Factually article said IPOS did not tell Mr Tan not to pursue a trademark dispute with Target in Singapore or that he had a high chance of losing in such a dispute. 

It also presented a timeline:

• 2018: Target registered its AUDEN trademark in the US and in Singapore, for different categories of products.
• 2023: Aupen applied to register its AUPEN trademark in Singapore and the US. The AUPEN trademark was successfully registered in Singapore in 2023 and remains valid. No challenge to the trademark has been filed in Singapore.
• Aug 25, 2025: Aupen’s official Instagram account 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 US might be confused by the AUPEN trademark given the similarities with Target’s AUDEN trademark, and sought information on Aupen’s current and intended use of the AUPEN trademark.

"Rights conferred by the registration of a trademark only apply in the country where the trademark is registered," said the Factually article. 

"If Target proceeds to object to Aupen’s trademark application for AUPEN in the US, the matter will be heard in the US."

The potential US trademark dispute between Aupen and Target in the US has and will have no effect on Aupen’s trademark registration in Singapore.

The trademark in Singapore remains valid, unless and until there is a successful challenge in the country, whether by Target or any other party.

Upon learning from its Aug 25 Instagram post that Aupen, a Singapore business with a Singapore-registered trademark, was involved in the potential US trademark dispute, IPOS initiated a meeting to offer support, said Factually.

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.

THE MEETING

The meeting took place on Sep 1, where Mr Tan shared more information about the potential US trademark dispute, including that he was receiving legal advice regarding it. 

IPOS reassured him that Aupen's trademark in Singapore remained valid.

The Factually article noted that as of its publication on Sep 22, the potential US trademark dispute has not happened.

Going beyond protecting Aupen’s trademark in Singapore, Mr Tan asked about counteractions, including revoking Target’s trademarks 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,” said the Factually article.

“IPOS did not at any time advise Mr Tan against pursuing a trademark 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.”

At the meeting, Mr Tan also expressed concerns about foreign businesses that had registered trademarks in Singapore despite not operating in the country. 

Mr Tan also asked how he could lobby for a change in Singapore’s law.

In line with its usual approach to such feedback, IPOS informed Mr Tan that he could write to the authority 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 trademark registration or legal reform in general," added the Factually article.

“In fact, Singapore’s trademark laws already prohibit the registration of trademarks made in bad faith. 

"Registrations made in bad faith include those which were dishonestly made, or are considered to be commercially unacceptable by industry."

SINGAPORE’S TRADEMARK LAWS

As the national intellectual property authority, IPOS’ functions include administering the systems in Singapore for the protection of intellectual property rights and promoting public awareness and effective use of such rights.

Factually said IPOS is committed to administering a regime that is “robust, transparent and neutral”.

“It is neither in the mandate of our intellectual property regime, which is globally recognised, nor in IPOS’ interest to prioritise any particular business over another in any dispute between them.”

Singapore’s intellectual property laws seek to ensure equal and fair access for all businesses seeking intellectual property protection in the country. 

In line with this, Singapore’s trademark registration regime does not differentiate between foreign and local businesses, it said.

“Far from preferring foreign businesses over local businesses, IPOS works actively to promote intellectual property 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 intellectual property strategists to help businesses understand and manage their intangible assets,” added the Factually article.

Regarding trademark disputes before IPOS, Factually said the authority conducts hearings for certain disputes involving the registration of trademarks 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,” it noted.

“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.”

IPOS STATEMENT

IPOS issued a media statement on Sep 11 addressing "false and misleading statements" reported in various media outlets regarding the Sep 1 meeting and as posted by Mr Tan on Sep 9 on his social media account.

The statement reflects what IPOS told Mr Tan at the Sep 1 meeting, according to the Factually article.

Its media statement clarified that IPOS did not advise Mr Tan against pursuing a trademark dispute with Target or that he had a high chance of losing in such a dispute. 

It also said that IPOS did not tell Mr Tan that allowing Target to register its trademarks in Singapore, even though it does not operate here, was in line with the mandate to make Singapore attractive for foreign investment.

"Instead of clarifying the falsehoods thereafter, Mr Tan made his Sep 16 social media post insinuating that IPOS flip-flopped on its advice to Mr Tan. 

"The insinuation is that IPOS’ media statement is false or inaccurate and that Mr Tan’s account is true … The fact is that Mr Tan already sought legal advice for the potential US trademark dispute. 

"While IPOS does offer help to Singapore businesses to navigate intellectual property 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."