Why PUMA’s SG trademark war with Tiger Woods’ Sun Day Red was a leap too big

PUMA has failed to block the registration of Sun Day Red in Singapore, after the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) found no likelihood of consumer confusion between the two brands’ “big cat” logos. In a decision issued on 13 March, principal assistant registrar Tan Mei Lin dismissed PUMA’s opposition in full, ruling that the competing marks are more dissimilar than similar across visual and conceptual elements.

At the heart of the dispute was whether Sun Day Red’s tiger logo, backed by Tiger Woods, was too close to PUMA’s signature leaping cat. PUMA argued that both marks shared a similar overall impression, pointing to a side-profile big cat in motion, minimalistic styling and a dynamic, arched posture that could confuse consumers across overlapping product categories such as apparel and accessories.

However, the tribunal rejected this, finding that the differences in composition, shape, features and movement were significant enough to distinguish the two.

Don't miss: Typo or tactic: PUMA India rebrands as PVMA in latest collaboration with Olympic star

Visually, PUMA’s mark was described as a smooth, solid silhouette of a leaping cat, while Sun Day Red’s logo features a tiger formed through bold, segmented lines with visible stripes.

The registrar noted that these thick lines are prominent and would form part of a consumer’s “imperfect recollection” of the mark.

The animals themselves were also deemed distinct. While PUMA’s logo represents a PUMA or generic big cat, Sun Day Red’s mark clearly depicts a tiger, with its stripes making it unlikely to be perceived or remembered as a generalised animal. Furthermore, differences in posture further separated the two. Puma’s cat appears to leap in a pronounced upward arc, whereas Sun Day Red’s tiger takes on a more horizontal, grounded motion.

Conceptually, the tribunal found that the marks evoke different ideas. One is a streamlined puma in mid-leap while the other is a segmented tiger moving horizontally. This reinforces the lack of similarity, said the registrar. 

Because similarity is a threshold requirement under Singapore trademark law, the failure to establish this meant PUMA’s case could not succeed. The registrar added that even if similarity had been established, there would still be no likelihood of confusion given the level of attention consumers typically exercise when purchasing such goods.

In its submissions, PUMA had also argued that its strong global reputation heightened the risk of confusion. However, the tribunal rejected a “reputation-therefore-confusion” argument, noting that brand strength does not automatically widen the scope of protection. In fact, PUMA’s established association with its name may further reduce confusion.

The ruling also cautioned against overextending trademark protection for animal logos, noting that doing so could unfairly grant exclusivity over common motifs widely used in the fashion and sportswear industry.

With the opposition dismissed across all grounds, the Sun Day Red mark will proceed to registration in Singapore, marking an early legal win for the brand as it expands beyond North America.

Who owns the leap? 

From a branding perspective, some industry players see PUMA’s challenge as a stretch. Jude Foo, general manager, Nine: TwentyEight shared that this is a fight PUMA can't win.

“I believe PUMA could be picking a fight specifically in a smaller market to see the ruling versus just taking Tiger Woods and Sun Day Red on in the US where they are clearly more marketable," he said.  He added that true branding conflicts go beyond surface-level resemblance.

“A real branding issue would be that the logos and naming are too similar, which isn’t the case in this example with Sun Day Red and PUMA." 

Echoing this, Ambrish Chaudhry, head of strategy, Asia, MSQ & Elmwood noted that the case highlights a disconnect between how brands view themselves and how consumers actually perceive them.

“PUMA thinks customers associate all big cats with their brand and thence it is an infringement. But from an outside perspective the brands seem sufficiently different for the courts to think that customers will not be confused,” he said.

He added that clearer cases of infringement tend to involve deliberate imitation - something he does not see here. “There are of course some copycat brands who literally copy the same colour scheme, typography and logo as the leading brand in a category, but those are meant to consciously mislead customers to unfairly gain sales, which doesn’t seem to be the case here.”

Andy Reynolds, founder and creative director at branding consultancy Imagination Riot, highlighted the differences in intent, context, and execution. PUMA's abstract, stylised cat that faces left has been on football boots for nearly 56 years. Meanwhile, Sun Day Red's tiger rendered in 15 deliberate lines to represent one of Tiger Woods' major wins.

From a brand identity standpoint, the two marks share a category of leaping felines but that’s where the similarity ends. "If PUMA wins this argument, you'd have to start pulling tiger imagery from half the world's sports teams, university crests, and automotive badges," said Reynolds, adding that:

The trademark system isn't designed to give one brand a monopoly on an entire species.

Reynolds added that in brand identity, there are three key factors: visual similarity, market overlap, and consumer confusion. Sun Day Red and PUMA share a sport. but only loosely. Where PUMA plays across football, running and lifestyle, Sun Day Red is a golf brand that is built around a very specific cultural icon. 

"The consumer picking up a Sun Day Red polo isn’t going to mistake it for a PUMA product. Sun Day Red is a new brand with serious backers. PUMA going after it looks less like protecting IP and more like a large cat hissing at something it's threatened by. They may have claws, but in this case, they've got nothing to scratch with," said Reynolds.

Future-proofing the cat

According to Edwin Tan, creative director at creative studio BRAVO Creative, PUMA's logo battle isn’t just about how the logo looks today, but how it might evolve. Looking ahead, if the brand experiments with a golf range or more expressive treatments such as stripes, motion lines or patterns, its design could quickly drift into Sun Day Red’s visual territory. This, in turn, increases confusion risk and forces PUMA to self-censor, said Tan.

Tan also highlighted brands such as Apple and Lacoste who have similarly trademarked the Apple march and the Crocodile logo, adding that:

It is not only about the static logo today. It is about protecting the freedom to evolve the icon over time.

Be part of #Content360 Singapore, 22–23 April 2026, where creativity and culture collide. Explore how AI-driven storytelling is shaping the future of content, gain practical insights, discover new tactics, and learn how the best in Asia are creating campaigns that truly resonate. 

Related articles:  
Tiger Woods' golf line Sun Day Red faces trademark dispute
PUMA restructures brand marketing, names new chief brand officer  
PUMA names new senior director of marketing for SEA