British fashion brand NEXT loses bid to invalidate Singapore firm NEXTEVO’s trademarks

NEXT’s applications for a declaration of invalidity ultimately failed on all grounds, leaving both NEXTEVO trademarks registered.

PHOTO: NEXTEVO, NEXT

Published Oct 02, 2026, 07:45 PM

Updated Oct 02, 2026, 09:42 PM

British retailer NEXT lost its bid to invalidate Singapore company NEXTEVO’s trade marks, as IPOS found the marks visually and conceptually distinct.

NEXTEVO’s name, an invented word combining “NEXT” and “evolution,” represents its eco-friendly materials and is seen as a whole, not just the "NEXT" part.

NEXT’s claims of bad faith and passing off were rejected, and NEXT was ordered to pay NEXTEVO $14,450 in costs, leaving NEXTEVO’s trade marks registered.

SINGAPORE – British fashion and homeware retailer NEXT has lost its bid to invalidate the trademarks of Singapore sustainability company NEXTEVO, after a dispute over whether the two names were too similar.

The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) found that the NEXTEVO marks were not similar to NEXT’s existing registered trademarks visually, aurally or conceptually, according to grounds of decision issued on Sept 2 3.

NEX T Holdi ngs had a pplied to invalidate two trademarks registered in April 2022 by N EXTEVO Holding s, including a plain “NEXTEVO” word mark and another incorporating a leaf design.

The NEXTEVO marks cover goods in Classes 23 and 24, including threads, yarns and textiles.

The fashion retailer had argued, among other things, that the common “NEXT” element made the marks similar and that the “EVO” portion of NEXTEVO could be understood as an abbreviation of the word “evolution”.

But principal assis tant regis trar Tan Mei Lin was unconvinced, at one point observing that the parties’ arguments over the meaning of “Evo” had taken the proceedings on something of a detour.

“At this point, it has become clear that the parties’ argumentation and this inquiry have gone on a scenic romp,” she said in her decision.

She later described the question of whether “evo” was an accepted abbreviation of “evolution” as a “red herring”, saying the real question was whether the concepts behind NEXTEVO and NEXT were similar.

She found that they were not.

Invented word, unfamiliar to the public

While “next” is an ordinary English word with a well-established meaning, NEXTEVO is an invented word that would be unfamiliar to the public, she said.

Even if some people understood NEXTEVO to mean “next evolution”, the idea of evolution would significantly alter the concept and take the mark further away from the meaning of NEXT, she added.

The two companies operate in different parts of the fashion and textile ecosystems.

NEXT is a British retailer founded in 1864 that sells fashion products, including clothing and footwear, as well as home and household products.

The fashion retailer said it has about 450 sto res in Britain and more than 180 franchised stores elsewhere, including in Asia, Europe and the Middle East. It also operates an online store.

NEXT said its trademarks had been used here since around 2012, and its products can be purchased here on its Singapore website and other shopping platforms such as Zalora.

NEXTEVO, meanwhile, is a Singapore company that transforms agricultural waste like pineapple leaves and coconut husks into environmentally friendly materials and products.

It sup plies its materials to fashion brands, textile mills and manufacturers for further processing, rather than primarily selling finished consumer products. The company has operations in Singapore, Indonesia and Thailand.

In its counter-statement, NEXTEVO said that its name was coined by combining “NEXT” with “evolution”, reflecting its aim of turning agricultural waste into natural and environmentally friendly materials.

Why NEXT’s bid failed

Despite that derivation, the registrar found that trademarks had to be perceived as wholes and said it would be “contrived” to split the invented NEXTEVO name into two components and treat NEXT as its dominant concept.

NEXT also alleged bad faith, arguing that NEXTEVO should have known about its earlier NEXT trademarks.

The fasion brand also said the Singapore company was seeking to ride on the goodwill and reputation attached to its trademarks .

NEXT’s case failed on both these grounds of bad faith and passing off.

The registrar found that these claims had not been established, noting that the NEXTEVO trademarks were distinctive when viewed as a whole and that there was no reasonable likelihood of confusion.

“The fact that they contain the letters ‘NEXT’ is incidental because the registered m arks are perceived as wholes, and are distinctive as a whole,” she said.

She also found no bad faith in NEXTEVO registering its marks in Classes 23 and 2 4 to protect its fibres, threads, yarns and textiles.

NEXT was ordered to pay NEXTEVO $1 4,450 i n costs, including disbursements.

Copyright/Intellectual property

Legal services sector

NEXT 提出的宣告无效申请最终因所有理由均未获通过，NEXTEVO 的两个商标仍然有效。

图片：NEXTEVO，NEXT

发布于 2026 年 10 月 2 日 晚上 7:45

更新于2026年10月2日晚上9:42

英国零售商 NEXT 试图使新加坡公司 NEXTEVO 的商标无效，但遭到新加坡知识产权局 (IPOS) 的驳回，IPOS 认为这些商标在视觉和概念上是不同的。

NEXTEVO 的名称是由“NEXT”和“evolution”组合而成的自造词，代表了其环保材料，并且被视为一个整体，而不仅仅是“NEXT”部分。

NEXT 提出的恶意和不正当竞争指控被驳回，NEXT 被责令向 NEXTEVO 支付 14,450 美元的诉讼费用，NEXTEVO 的商标得以注册。

新加坡——英国时尚家居零售商 NEXT 试图使新加坡可持续发展公司 NEXTEVO 的商标无效，但最终以失败告终。此前，双方就两个名称是否过于相似存在争议。

新加坡知识产权局 (IPOS) 于 9 月 2 日发布的决定理由显示，NEXTEVO 商标在视觉、听觉或概念上与 NEXT 现有的注册商标并不相似。

NEXTEVO Holdings 申请撤销 NEXTEVO Holdings 于 2022 年 4 月注册的两项商标，其中包括一个简单的“NEXTEVO”文字商标和另一个包含叶子图案的商标。

NEXTEVO 商标涵盖第 23 类和第 24 类商品，包括线、纱和纺织品。

这家时尚零售商辩称，除其他原因外，共同的“NEXT”元素使这些商标相似，并且NEXTEVO中的“EVO”部分可以理解为“evolution”（进化）一词的缩写。

但首席助理注册官谭美琳对此并不信服，她一度指出，双方对“Evo”含义的争论使诉讼程序偏离了正轨。

“至此，很明显，双方的争论和此次调查已经陷入了一场荒诞的闹剧，”她在裁决中说道。

她后来将“evo”是否是“evolution”的公认缩写这个问题描述为“转移视线”，并表示真正的问题是 NEXTEVO 和 NEXT 背后的概念是否相似。

她发现事实并非如此。

自造词，公众不熟悉

她说：“虽然‘next’是一个含义明确的普通英语单词，但NEXTEVO是一个自造词，公众可能不熟悉。”

她补充说，即使有些人将 NEXTEVO 理解为“下一个进化”，但进化的概念会显著改变这一概念，使该标志与 NEXT 的含义渐行渐远。

这两家公司在时尚和纺织生态系统的不同领域开展业务。

NEXT 是一家英国零售商，成立于 1864 年，销售时尚产品，包括服装和鞋类，以及家居用品。

这家时尚零售商表示，它在英国拥有约450家门店，并在包括亚洲、欧洲和中东在内的其他地区拥有超过180家加盟店。此外，它还运营一家网上商店。

NEXT表示，其商标自2012年左右开始在新加坡使用，其产品可以在其新加​​坡网站以及Zalora等其他购物平台上购买。

与此同时，NEXTEVO 是一家新加坡公司，该公司将菠萝叶和椰子壳等农业废料转化为环保材料和产品。

该公司主要向时尚品牌、纺织厂和制造商供应原材料，用于进一步加工，而非直接销售成品。该公司在新加坡、印度尼西亚和泰国均设有运营机构。

NEXTEVO 在反驳声明中表示，其名称是由“NEXT”与“evolution”组合而成，体现了其将农业废料转化为天然环保材料的目标。

NEXT竞标失败的原因

尽管有这样的推导，注册官认为商标必须被视为一个整体，并表示将虚构的 NEXTEVO 名称拆分为两个部分，并将 NEXT 视为其主要概念，是“牵强的”。

NEXT 还指控对方存在恶意，认为 NEXTEVO 应该知道其早期的 NEXT 商标。

该时尚品牌还表示，这家新加坡公司试图利用其商标所附带的商誉和声誉。

NEXT 的诉讼因恶意和假冒这两个理由均被驳回。

注册官认为这些主张没有得到证实，并指出 NEXTEVO 商标作为一个整体具有显著性，不存在造成混淆的合理可能性。

“商标中包含字母‘NEXT’只是偶然现象，因为注册商标被视为一个整体，并且作为一个整体具有独特性，”她说。

她还发现 NEXTEVO 在第 23 类和第 24 类注册其商标以保护其纤维、线、纱和纺织品并无恶意。

NEXT 被责令向 NEXTEVO 支付 14,450 美元的费用，包括支出。

版权/知识产权

法律服务行业