Puma fails to block registration of Tiger Woods-backed Sun Day Red trademark in Singapore

European sportswear giant Puma has failed in its bid to block golf sensation Tiger Woods-backed performance apparel brand Sun Day Red from registering its trademark in Singapore, in a closely watched intellectual property dispute over competing “big cat” logos.

In a judgment delivered on March 13, the registrar dismissed Puma’s opposition, finding that the brand marks are more dissimilar than similar and that there is no likelihood of consumer confusion.

“The competing marks differ in terms of composition, shape, features and movement,” the registrar said, adding that these distinctions would affect the overall impression on consumers.

Even though both brand marks feature big cats in motion, the tribunal found that the differences in form, style and concept are decisive.

Principal Assistant Registrar Tan Mei Lin emphasised that care must be taken not to overprotect animal logos, noting that doing so would unfairly extend protection to any depiction of a similar animal.

Puma, headquartered in Herzogenaurach, Germany, is one of the world’s largest sportswear companies, operating in more than 120 countries with over 21,000 employees as at 2024. It has long relied on its signature leaping cat logo in apparel, footwear and sports equipment.

Sun Day Red, by contrast, is a newer entrant. The golf-focused apparel and lifestyle brand is a joint venture between Woods and TaylorMade, and launched its first products in May 2024.

While primarily an online store targeting North America, Sun Day Red already ships internationally, with products accessible to Singapore consumers via e-commerce platforms such as Lazada, Shopee and Goxip.

Its logo, a stylised tiger composed of thick segmented lines, is closely associated with Woods.

According to the Sun Day Red website, the phrase “Sunday Red” refers to the iconic red shirt worn by Woods on the final day of tournaments, symbolising strength, dominance and his mother’s belief that it is his “power colour”.

At the heart of the dispute was whether Sun Day Red’s tiger logo was too similar to Puma’s iconic leaping cat.

Puma argued that both marks shared key visual traits: a side-profile big cat in motion, minimalistic styling and an arched, dynamic posture. It said these similarities could lead to confusion among consumers buying sportswear and related goods.

But the tribunal rejected that argument.

First, it found the marks visually distinct.

Puma’s logo is a smooth solid silhouette of a leaping cat, while Sun Day Red’s tiger is rendered in bold, segmented lines with visible stripes.

“The thick lines are prominent and well-spaced,” the registrar noted, adding that they would not be overlooked by consumers.

Second, the animals themselves were deemed different. The registrar accepted that Sun Day Red’s logo clearly depicts a tiger, not just a generic big cat.

“It is unlikely for a person... to describe or remember it as a generic ‘big cat’,” the judgment said.

Third, the movement and posture diverged. Puma’s cat appears to leap high in an arc, while Sun Day Red’s tiger moves in a more horizontal, grounded motion.

The tribunal concluded that, taken together, the marks are visually and conceptually dissimilar and that any similarities at a general level are insufficient.

Puma also argued that its strong global reputation heightened the risk of confusion.

But the tribunal pushed back against what it described as a reputation-therefore-confusion argument.

“(A) strong reputation does not necessarily equate to a higher likelihood of confusion and could in fact have the contrary effect,” the registrar said.

In Singapore, Puma’s branding is closely tied to its name, which further reduces the likelihood that consumers would mistake a tiger logo for Puma’s mark.

The Singapore decision is the latest development in a broader global effort to challenge Sun Day Red’s trademark.

Puma filed a separate opposition in the US in January 2025, arguing that the tiger logo is too similar to its leaping cat. The dispute remains ongoing.

It is not the only company to have taken issue with the brand.

Earlier, Louisiana-based company Tigeraire, a small firm founded in 2020, opposed Sun Day Red’s trademark in the US, claiming the tiger logo unlawfully hijacked its own leaping tiger design. The company specialises in designing and manufacturing wearable airflow cooling technology.

The dispute has since escalated into a federal lawsuit in California, with opposition proceedings suspended. A trial is tentatively expected after late 2026 if no settlement is reached.

Despite these challenges, Sun Day Red has continued selling its products globally.

In the Singapore proceedings, Sun Day Red was represented by lawyers from Drew & Napier, while Puma was represented by Ghows.

The tribunal ultimately dismissed all grounds of opposition and allowed the trademark to proceed to registration.

Puma was also ordered to pay Sun Day Red $10,657.25 in costs, inclusive of disbursements.

The Straits Times has contacted Sun Day Red to ask if it plans to open physical stores in Singapore. Puma declined to comment.

Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

Puma SE v Sunday Red, LLC [2026] SGIPOS 4

Driver who ran red light and hit motorcyclist has jail term tripled after prosecution’s appeal High Court sets aside duo’s acquittal of bribing then LTA official, cites copying by district judge