返回档案库

案例库 · 法务与合规 · 法务决策 · 2022–2025

这条还没译成中文,下面是英文原文。

A handbag brand picked a trademark fight, then blamed the regulator when it went wrong

Aupen tried to trademark its name globally. Target opposed over a name clash, and the founder's false claims about it earned a government correction order.

Aupen · Target Corporation · 2025-09-22

怎么回事

Aupen launched in October 2022 selling sculptural, asymmetrical leather handbags priced between $180 and $490, and quickly became a celebrity favorite — Beyoncé, Hailey Bieber, Selena Gomez, Kylie Jenner and Taylor Swift were all photographed carrying the brand, giving the small Singapore label an outsized profile for its size.

That profile made an international trademark worth pursuing, and Aupen filed to register its name globally, including in the United States. Target opposed the filing, arguing the Aupen name was too close to Auden, Target's own house brand for underwear and sleepwear, and risked confusing shoppers.

Around September 8–9, 2025, Aupen wiped its Instagram account and shut down its website. Founder Nicholas Tan then posted three separate claims on Instagram — on September 9, 15 and 16 — asserting that IPOS had told him not to pursue the dispute because he would likely lose, that Singapore's trademark law favored foreign businesses over local ones, and that IPOS had reversed its position after a public statement on September 11.

Singapore's government fact-checking unit found the claims false: IPOS said it had never advised Tan to drop the dispute or commented on his chances, consistent with its standard practice of giving general information and directing businesses to independent legal advice. On September 22, 2025, Law Minister Edwin Tong directed the POFMA office to issue Tan a correction order for the false statements.

为什么会这样

  • Aupen pursued a global trademark registration without first clearing its naming collision with Target's Auden brand, inviting an opposition it was not positioned to win against a far larger company.
  • Facing the setback, the founder chose to publicly blame a government agency for advice it had not given, rather than acknowledge the trademark dispute had not gone the brand's way.
  • Making three specific, checkable claims about a named regulator's private advice invited the exact fact-check that produced a formal correction order and extended the story past the original dispute.
代价Site and socials wiped; founder given a POFMA order丢脸

教训

Losing a trademark fight to a bigger company is a business setback; misrepresenting what a regulator told you turns that setback into a second, self-inflicted one that outlives the original dispute.

后来呢

Aupen's Instagram and website remained down after the September 2025 wipe. IPOS issued its own correction to Tan's claims on September 22, the same day the POFMA order was directed, and the trademark opposition with Target continued separately from the false-statement controversy that came to overshadow it.

资料来源

发现哪里写错了?告诉我们。

Comments · 0

    登录 后就能评论。

    类似的案例

    这家公司栽倒的地方,别处有人漂亮地解开过。 第二意见 →