What a Landmark Lawsuit Means for Aman, Other Ultra-Luxury Brands

Image: Aman

Law

What a Landmark Lawsuit Means for Aman, Other Ultra-Luxury Brands

How well-known can the name of an ultra-exclusive hotel chain – where rooms start at $1,500 per night and stretch beyond $15,000 – really be? That was the question the Court of Appeal in Singapore considered more than a decade ago in a landmark case that pitted Aman, the ...

June 27, 2025 - By TFL

What a Landmark Lawsuit Means for Aman, Other Ultra-Luxury Brands

Image : Aman

key points

In a landmark 2009 decision, the Singapore Court of Appeal affirmed that a brand with limited public recognition can possess protectable goodwill.

The court emphasized that Aman’s marketing strategy and niche customer base were sufficient to establish trademark rights under Singapore law.

This case set a key precedent for ultra-luxury brands, confirming that exclusivity and limited exposure do not preclude legal protection of trademarks.

Case Documentation

What a Landmark Lawsuit Means for Aman, Other Ultra-Luxury Brands

How well-known can the name of an ultra-exclusive hotel chain – where rooms start at $1,500 per night and stretch beyond $15,000 – really be? That was the question the Court of Appeal in Singapore considered more than a decade ago in a landmark case that pitted Aman, the Swiss-based hospitality group, against Novelty Pte, a property developer in Singapore. Not only did the court provide an answer (and clarity on the tenets of trademark law in Singapore), the outcome marked one chapter in what would become a larger brand-building exercise for the company on a mission to create “the world’s ultimate luxury lifestyle brand.”

The dispute began in 2006, when Amanresorts Limited (“Aman”) sought to block Novelty’s use of the name “Amanusa” for a far less luxurious residential development. Aman argued that the name mirrored that of its AMANUSA resort in Bali (which the group no longer counts as part of its portfolio), giving rise to claims of passing off and unauthorized use of a well-known trademark in violation of Singapore’s Trade Marks Act.

The High Court of Singapore initially sided with Aman in 2008, holding that its trademarks – many of which combine the Sanskrit word Aman (“peace”) with a second, site-specific name – were well-known in Singapore. On that basis, the court found that Novelty had infringed Aman’s rights and barred it from using the “Amanusa” name in connection with real estate projects.

Aman ultimately prevailed on appeal, with the Court of Appeal affirming the lower court’s decision and addressing a critical question: Can a brand that is intentionally exclusive and limited in reach still amass sufficient goodwill to qualify as a “well-known” trademark?

The Question of Goodwill

In its ruling, the Court of Appeal made clear that goodwill – a core element of any passing off claim – does not need to be widespread to merit legal protection. It can exist within a narrow segment of the public, so long as that group is “not negligible.” In Aman’s case, the court found it had established goodwill in Singapore, albeit among a small, affluent audience: individuals with the means or desire to stay at its ultra-luxury resorts.

This limited – but meaningful – recognition was enough to satisfy the legal threshold.

One of the most compelling parts of the 2009 decision is the court’s acknowledgment of the paradox at the heart of Aman’s branding: the group cultivated its reputation – and goodwill – in part through intentional obscurity. As the court noted: “The exposure that [Aman has] succeeded in establishing is plainly limited to the well-heeled. It is these people who visit the [Aman] resorts; it is also this group which has been and continues to be the target of [Aman’s] selective marketing campaign. In contrast, exposure of the ‘Aman’ names has not been established for other income groups … Some indication of this can be found in the survey carried out … [which showed that the] overwhelming majority of [consumers] had not heard of the Amanusa Bali or any other Aman resort.”

The court continued, “The uneven pattern of recognition of the ‘Aman’ names among different income groups in the present case is no accident. It is the result of the deliberate policy of [Aman] to concentrate their marketing and advertising efforts on the wealthy. The image which [Aman] seeks to project is one of understated class.” 

To provide a “glimpse” of Aman’s approach, the court pointed to an excerpt from an article published by Time magazine in 1994, which describes how the Aman resorts are designed and furnished: “Much of what makes [Aman resorts] distinctive is how studiously they avoid most of the signifiers that the rest of the hospitality industry employs to trumpet their properties as ‘high class’… The gift shops carry no logo-branded t-shirts or beach towels. There are virtually no logos anywhere, except on matchbook covers and stationery.”

> In the years since, the lack of Aman-branded offerings has changed; Aman has begun offerings cosmetics, apparel, and accessories under its own name in a bid to build out an increasingly robust lifestyle arm to complement its operations.

The court emphasized there is nothing inherently problematic about a brand choosing exclusivity and subtlety over mass-market visibility – but such a strategy comes with consequences. Namely, any goodwill acquired may be limited in scope. Still, the court found that Aman’s focused marketing – targeting high-net-worth individuals in Singapore, including American Express Platinum and Centurion cardholders – was sufficient to generate goodwill, even without widespread public recognition.

Beyond Aman

The implications of the Aman case stretch far beyond Singapore’s borders and the window of time immediately following the decision. Courts in numerous jurisdictions have held that trademark goodwill need not be widespread to the protected – it can exist meaningfully within a niche, affluent demographic. The Court of Appeal’s decision offers a valuable precedent for ultra-luxury brands whose visibility is inherently limited by design: Exclusivity is not a barrier to trademark protection, provided a brand can show targeted engagement and consumer recognition within its intended market segment.

More broadly, the decision underscores the value of intentional, well-documented marketing strategies. For high-end brands in fashion, hospitality, or bespoke services, the court’s acceptance of Aman’s selective, low-visibility approach as a legitimate means of building goodwill offers reassurance. Trademark rights can still be enforced – and reputations protected – even when recognition among the general public is minimal. For businesses built on scarcity, understatement, and elite appeal, Aman’s win is a legal and strategic blueprint.

related articles