Petitions and Appeals Committee Affirms Cancellation of Trademark Confusingly Similar to River Light’s “TT” Logo

On March 21, 2025, the Petitions and Appeals Committee of the Ministry of Economic Affairs (the “Committee”) sided with fashion brand River Light V L.P. (“River Light”), affirming the finding of Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) that the registered trademark no. 02285492 (“the ‘492 mark”) should be canceled due to confusion with River Light’s well-known “TT” logo (see below).

The contested trademark, no. 02285492 (see below), was filed by Sachia Nail Ltd. (“Sachia”), designated for use in goods in Class 3, covering non-human use cleanser, mouthwash, air freshener, and pet wash. River Light filed opposition on October 11, 2023. TIPO sided with River Light on October 30, 2024, finding Sachia’s 492 mark confusingly similar to River Light’s “TT” logo. Sachia challenged TIPO’s determination to the Committee.

Before the Committee, Sachia particularly argued the following:

1.        The orientations of the two “T”s in the ‘492 mark differ from those in River Light’s “TT” logo.

2.        River Light’s “TT” trademark is well-known in categories such as shoes, bags, apparel, and cosmetics, which are dissimilar to the goods covered by the ‘492 mark. 

3.        The documents submitted by River Light are insufficient to prove the well-known status of River Light’s “TT”.

The Committee rejected Sachia’s arguments based on the following reasons:

1.      On the well-known status of River Light’s “TT” logo, the Committee found River Light has provided sufficient evidence to prove the fame of its “TT” logo. River Light demonstrated continuous and extensive use of its Tory Burch brand, including the sales of fashionable items like shoes, bags, perfume, and sunglasses in major local department stores; widespread media exposures, marketing efforts, and the successful trademark registrations in numerous countries. The Committee affirmed TIPO’s determination that River Light’s “TT” logo is well-known when Sachia filed the application for the ‘492 mark.

2.        On similarity, the Committee noted that the two Ts in the ‘492 mark are left-right symmetrical, which is different from River Light’s up-down symmetrical. However, such difference is minor, and ordinary consumers would perceive “T”s as the dominant elements in both Sachia’s ‘492 mark and River Light’s “TT” logo. There is high degree of visual and conceptual similarity between the two trademarks.

3.        On the relatedness of the designated goods, the Committee acknowledged that River Light’s “TT” covers cosmetics, perfume, and fashionable items. However, the Committee elaborated that mouthwash and air refresher, like cosmetics and perfume, serve personal hygiene and deodorization purposes. Furthermore, non-human cleanser may be seen as related to the maintenance of fashionable bags and apparel. As such, it is not erroneous for TIPO to find relatedness between the designated products.

4.        In sum, considering the similarity between the two trademarks, the relatedness of the products, the well-known status of River Light’s “TT” logo, and the facts that ordinary consumers are more familiar with River Light’s “TT” logo, the Committee concluded that registration of ‘492 trademark does violate Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act. TIPO’s decision was therefore affirmed by the Committee.   

 

Source:

Committee’s determination: https://pamsdmz.moea.gov.tw/pams-public/api/download/20250503_decisionDownload-A211312007_184141_504_9EjjKw9WPZ/

TIPO’s determination: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/OS0/OS0401_SCN3.jsp?issueNo=XpJ13RyT4Z3dvTXRJZ2VLRlZBYjJBY3RCQjRyQT09&l6=zh_TW&isReadBulletinen_US=&isReadBulletinzh_TW=true

Taiwan's IP Office Rejects Prada's Opposition Against "jiu jiu" Trademark

On March 31, 2025, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) denied a trademark opposition filed by Prada against the registered trademark “jiu jiu”. TIPO found the contested trademark not confusingly similar to Prada’s “MIU MIU” trademark (no. 00832518, see below).

The contested trademark, “jiu jiu” (no. 02323938, see below), was filed by Home Product Inc. (“Home Product”) on February 3, 2023, and granted on October 1, 2023, designated for use in goods in class 3, including cosmetic cotton swabs, cotton pads, make-up removers, facial soap, baby soap, bath essences, bath gel, soap, natural essences, flower essences, etc. Prada filed opposition on December 28, 2023, citing violation of Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act.

TIPO ruled in the favor of Home Product, determining that there should be no confusion caused by registration of “jiu jiu”:

1.      Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act provides that a mark shall not be registered if such a mark is “identical with or similar to another person’s registered trademark or earlier filed trademark; and to be applied for goods or services identical with or similar to those for which the registered trademark is protected or the earlier filed trademark is designated; and hence there exists a likelihood of confusion on relevant consumers”.

2.      On the similarity of the trademarks, while both “jiu jiu” and “MIU MIU” consist of a word combination of two three-letter words, and both end with the letters “iu”, TIPO opined the difference in pronunciation (i.e., “/dʒju//dʒju/” vs. “/mju//mju/”) and visual impression caused by the initial letters (i.e., “j” vs. “M”) makes it unlikely for ordinary consumers to confuse Home Product’s contested trademark with that of Prada’s. The degree of similarity between the contested trademark and Prada’s cited trademark was deemed low.

3.      On the similarity of the designated products, TIPO agreed with Prada that the scope of products covered by Home Product’s “jiu jiu” overlaps with those designated by Prada’s “MIU MIU”, which also include various kinds of cosmetics and cleaning products, such as facial and body cleansers, soap, shampoo, conditioner, perfume, and essential oils.

4.      As to the distinctiveness of the trademarks, TIPO found both “jiu jiu” and “MIU MIU” quite distinctive, since both have no specific definition and are not related to the nature or function of the products they cover.

5.      On consumers’ familiarity, TIPO noted that the designated products of “jiu jiu” belong to the categories of personal hygiene and cosmetics. Although Prada did submit considerable evidence to prove the fame and recognition of the “MIU MIU” trademark, TIPO found the evidence mostly pertaining to Prada’s bags, shoes, apparel, and related accessories, not cosmetics and personal hygiene. Thus, TIPO was unable to determine if consumers in the relevant market were more familiar with Prada’s “MIU MIU” in relation to these specific goods.

6.      Based on the above, given the low degree of trademark similarity, the distinctiveness of the contested trademark, and the lack of evidence showing consumers’ familiarity with “MIU MIU” for the relevant product categories, TIPO concluded that the registration of Home Product’s “jiu jiu” would not cause confusion with Prada’s “MIU MIU”. Prada’s trademark opposition was denied accordingly.

 

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/OS0/OS0401_SCN3.jsp?issueNo=XpJ13RyT4RVNTWmFXK0gzNUsxd2FZUXVZV0NxZz09&l6=zh_TW&isReadBulletinen_US=&isReadBulletinzh_TW=true

Fashion brand “DIOR” prevailed in trademark opposition against “Diora”

On March 25, 2025, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) sided with Parfums Christian Dior (“Dior”), canceling the contested trademark “Diora” due to the likelihood of confusion with Dior’s iconic brand “DIOR” (see below).

The contested trademark, “Diora” (no. 02336174, see below), was filed by U.S. winery Delicato Vineyards LLC (“Delicato”) on April 14, 2023, and granted on November 16, 2023, designated for use on wine products. Dior filed opposition on February 2, 2024, citing violation of Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

TIPO ruled in Dior’s favor, finding that:

1.      Per Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act, a mark shall not be registered if such a mark is “identical with or similar to another person’s well-known trademark or mark, and hence there exists a likelihood of confusion on the relevant public or a likelihood of dilution of the distinctiveness or reputation of the said well-known trademark or mark.”

2.      Regarding the fame of “DIOR”, based on Dior’s ongoing sales records, marketing materials, press releases, local news reports, social media campaigns, and prior supporting judicial and TIPO’s decisions, TIPO agreed with Dior that by the filing date of the contested trademark, “DIOR” had achieved well-known status among the relevant consumers in the cosmetic and fragrance markets.

3.      As for similarity, TIPO noted that the first four letters of the contested trademark are identical to “DIOR”, with minor differences in terms of the word case, font size, and the additional ending letter “a”. TIPO agreed with Dior that ordinary consumers would find “Diora” visually and verbally similar to “DIOR”.

4.      Although “DIOR” is originated from the name of Dior’s founder, TIPO noted that “DIOR” has obtained strong distinctiveness among consumers via Dior’s continuous and profound use in its cosmetic and perfume products. On the other hand, there was no evidence supporting the fame of or consumer familiarity with Delicato’s “Diora”. As such, based on the submitted evidence, TIPO opined that consumers should be more familiar with “DIOR”.

5.      Delicato argued that “Diora” is designated for use in wine products, so its goods did not overlap with those designated by “DIOR”. TIPO disagreed, elaborating that wine, cosmetics, and perfume are not, as Delicato contended, entirely unrelated. For example, TIPO noted that the leftover materials in the process of wine making, lees, are often used as ingredients for manufacturing cosmetic products, because of its rich antioxidants and polyphenols. Similarly, perfume has been commonly used in marketing and promoting wine products, such as wine pairing and perfume bartending. As such, consumers may still find the wine product designated by “Diora”, to a certain degree, related to Dior’s perfume and cosmetic products.  

6.      In view of the above, given the distinctiveness and well-known status of “DIOR”, the similarity between “DIOR” and “Diora”, the relatedness between the designated products, and the strong recognition among the relevant consumers, TIPO concluded that registration of Delicato’s “Diora” has violated Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act. Hence, the contested trademark was canceled accordingly.

 

Source:

https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOjCM8ToPsmGJyKrAyMg1Xzw3QxebXP

The Appeals and Petitions Committee of Taiwan’s MOEA Upholds Denial of Apple’s “APPLE AFTERBURNER” Trademark Application

On March 12, 2025, the Petitions and Appeals Committee of Ministry of Economic Affairs (“Committee”) affirmed the findings of Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”), concluding that Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) trademark application “APPLE AFTERBURNER” should be denied due to similarity with SEGA Corporation’s (“Sega”) “AFTER BURNER CLIMAX” and “AFTER BURNER” (no. 01213886 and no. 01213887, see below).

Apple Inc.’s application for “APPLE AFTERBURNER” (application no. 108070112, see below) was filed on October 25, 2019, designating computer cards used to accelerate video performance. Apple’s application was denied on September 26, 2024, by TIPO due to similarity with Sega’s aforesaid trademarks. Apple challenged TIPO’s denial to the Committee, arguing TIPO’s denial was erroneous in failing to take into consideration Apple’s strong brand, and that consumers are more familiar with Apple’s trademark.

The Committee found no error in TIPO’s decision to deny Apple’s trademark application:

1.      On similarity, the Committee agreed with TIPO that both Apple’s and Sega’s trademarks share the element “AFTERBURNER”, which is the dominant part of the trademarks. Although there are some differences such as the additional “APPLE” in Apple’s application, the space between “AFTER” and “BURNER” and the additional “CLIMAX” in Sega’s cited trademarks, these differences are deemed minor. The Committee opined that ordinary consumers would still consider “APPLE AFTERBURNER” conceptually, verbally, and visually similar to Sega’s “AFTER BURNER CLIMAX” and “AFTER BURNER”.

2.      The Committee further noted that Sega’s cited trademarks are registered for computer and video game software, which are related to the products designated in Apple’s trademark application. Both are peripheral products associated with computers that serve supplemental or associated purposes. Although Apple argued that the actual accelerator cards it supplies are only available to users of Apple’s Mac Pro products, making confusion unlikely. However, the Committee found such argument misplaced, emphasizing that when evaluating registrability of a trademark, the analysis of product similarity is based on the products designated in the trademark applicant, not the trademark applicant’s actual commercial practices. Apple’s arguments seemingly conflate the two.

3.      While Apple argued that its trademark is more famous and deserves stronger protection, the Committee found such contentions lack evidentiary support. Apple did submit some records, including news reports and product information. However, the Committee consider these records, at best, prove that Apple does supply accelerator card products, but insufficient to show the trademark “APPLE AFTERBURNER” has become well-known among the relevant consumers.

4.      In view of the above, given that the similarity between Apple’s “APPLE AFTERBURNER” and Sega’s cited trademarks is high, that Apple’s designated products overlap with those designated by Sega’s trademarks, and that Sega’s “AFTER BURNER” possesses considerable distinctiveness, the Committee concluded that allowing Apple’s trademark application may cause confusion with Sega’s cited trademarks. As such, the Committee dismissed Apple’s appeal.

 

Source:

TIPO’s denial:

https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/OS0/OS0401_SCN3.jsp?issueNo=XpJ13RyT4U1RnUnI4eThhVGgzaGpXRWZrVGd5dz09&l6=zh_TW&isReadBulletinen_US=true&isReadBulletinzh_TW=true

Committee’s decision:

https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/SS0/SS0201_SCN3.jsp?approNo=T0440508&docDate=114/03/13&type=1&l6=zh_TW&isReadBulletinen_US=true&isReadBulletinzh_TW=true

Taiwan Court Affirmed Burberry’s Victory in Trademark Infringement Action On Appeal

In its decision rendered on March 20, 2025, Taiwan’s Intellectual Property and Commercial Court (the “IPC Court”) sided with Burberry Limited, affirming that LAICARFORE FASHION CLOTHING LIMITED COMPANY (“Laicarfore”) and ANIDA INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD. (“Anida”) should be liable for infringing the fashion brand’s well-known stripes icon (no.00906192 and no. 00905930, see below).

The defendants, Laicarfore and Anida, are vendors of dresses, shirts, skirts, coats, pants, and the relevant accessories. According to the records, Laicarfore and Anida contracted with factories in China for the supply of apparel products, and then imported and resold them through their own online platform (https://www.laicarfore.com.tw/) under the brand “Anita Su x LaiCarFore”. In around October 2021, Burberry discovered that the defendants were selling clothing bearing similar stripes icon on its website (See below). 

Given that Laicarfore had been sued by and settled with Burberry for trademark infringement for a couple of times, and that Laicarfore once again breached its written promise not to infringe Burberry’s trademark, Burberry decided to sue both Laicarfore and Anida for damages in the IPC Court. On July 31, 2024, in the first instance level, the IPC Court ruled in Burberry’s favor, finding Laicarfore and Anida jointly liable for trademark infringement, and awarding Burberry NT$ 3.98 million as damages, including NT$ 3 million as liquidated damages. Both Laicarfore and Anida appealed.

On appeal, Laicarfore and Anida argued that the stripes displayed on their products should not constitute trademark use, and that consumers will not be confused. On March 20, 2025, the IPC Court affirmed the finding of infringement of trademark, but reduced the liquidated damages to NT$ 2 million, finding the original awarded damages too excessive. The total awarded compensation became around NT$2,98 million. The IPC Court’s reasons are as follows:

1.    By examining the stripes and patterns displayed on the accused products, it is clear to the IPC Court that the background color similarly is beige, and the arrangements of thick and thin stripes resemble Burberry’s way of arrangement of red, black, and white stripes. The overall visual impression of the icon presented on the accused products is similar to Burberry’s aforesaid famous stripes logo.

2.    While there are other decorative elements presented on the accused products, these elements are randomly placed and not located in the most dominant position. In other words, consumers would still consider the colorful stripes the most dominant elements in the accused products.

3.    Although Laicarfore and Anida contended that the way they presented the color stripes should not constitute trademark use, the IPC Court disagreed, noting that the colorful stripes were clearly shown on Laicarfore’s and Anida’s website, and visible to general consumers when they shopped and purchased the products. As such, there should be intents on the part of Laicarfore and Anida to attract consumers by using similar icons on the accused products, which should constitute act of trademark use.

4.    On issue of damages, after considering that the defendants have made partial payments to compensate Burberry, that the defendants’ illegal profits have been forfeited, and the actual damages incurred upon Burberry, the IPC Court opined that the original award of NT$ 3 million as liquidated damages was too excessive. As such, the IPC Court exercised its discretionary power under Article 252 of Civil Code and reduced the liquidated damages to NT$ 2 million only.

Source:

113-Ming-Shan-Shan-Zi No. 16 (IPC Court, March 20, 2025), see: https://judgment.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD/data.aspx?ty=JD&id=IPCV,113%2c%e6%b0%91%e5%95%86%e4%b8%8a%2c16%2c20250320%2c1

 

Article 252 of Civil Code: “If the agreed penalty is disproportionately high, the court may reduce it to a reasonable amount.”

Taiwan’s IP Office rejected VOLKSWAGEN’s opposition against trademark “VSW”

 On February 19, 2025, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) dismissed an opposition by German auto giant VOLKSWAGEN, finding its “VW” trademarks (no. 00888319 and no. 02132639, see below) would not be confused with the contested trademark “VSW”.

 

The contested trademark, “VSW” (no. 02366144, see below), was filed by VISION (SHANGHAI) BRAND MANAGEMENT CO., LTD. (“VISION”) on September 18, 2023, and granted on April 1, 2024, designated for use in goods in class 25, including shoes, hats, socks, sweater, clothes, vests, shirts, pants, etc. VOLKSWAGEN filed opposition on June 27, 2024, citing violations of Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

TIPO ruled on February 19, 2025, finding VISION’s “VSW” not similar with VOLKSWAGEN’s “VW” trademarks:

1.    TIPO noted that while both VISIONS’s “VSW” and VOLKSWAGEN’s “VW” feature the letters “V” and “W”, the overall layout and visual design of the letters are noticeably different. In VISIONS’s “VSW”, an extra “S” is placed in the center that links the above “V” and the below “W”, which makes the entire visual impression dissimilar to VOLKSWAGEN’s “VW”. Ordinary consumers with reasonable care shall be able to distinguish VISIONS’s “VSW” from VOLKSWAGEN’s “VW”.

2.    On the designated products, TIPO was aware that VOLKSWAGEN’s “VW” were applied for use in apparel and related clothing, such as coats, scarfs, ties, suits, etc. These products’ functions and purposes overlap with those of products designated by VISIONS’s “VSW”. As such, TIPO agreed that the VISIONS’s “VSW” and VOLKSWAGEN’s “VW” were applied for use in similar goods.

3.    TIPO also found that evidence submitted by VOLKSWAGEN has sufficiently shown that its “VW” trademarks are distinctive, and have achieved well-known status in Taiwan. However, the similarity between VISIONS’s “VSW” and “VOLKSWAGEN’s “VW” is low, and the scope of “VW” trademarks’ fame seems to concentrate in the auto industry. Outside the categories of auto products and its relevant services, such as services for restaurants, lease of real property, beauty and cosmetics, and medicines, TIPO noted that there have been other co-existent trademarks that similarly feature “V” and “W”. Therefore, there should be no risk of confusion or dilution for VISION to register “VSW” in the category of apparel.

4.    Further, there is no other evidence showing VISION’s registration of “VSW” was based on bad faith to imitate “VOLKSWAGEN’s “VW”. The degree of similarity is low, and VISION’s “VSW” was applied for use in clothing and apparel. TIPO considered the records insufficient to prove that VISION’s registration was based on intent to take a free ride on VOLKSWAGEN’s “VW”.

5.    In view of the above, given that the similarity between VISIONS’s “VSW” and VOLKSWAGEN’s “VW” is low, that both trademarks possess considerable distinctiveness, and that there is no evidence showing risk of dilution and VISION’s bad faith to imitate, TIPO concluded that registration of “VSW” does not violate Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

 

Source:

https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/OS0/OS0401_SCN3.jsp?issueNo=XpJ13RyT4dEJHaHZOSnFBTFhweE5GQzE5Ykdqdz09&l6=zh_TW&isReadBulletinen_US=&isReadBulletinzh_TW=true     

 

1.    Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act

A trademark shall not be registered if such a mark is “identical with or similar to another person’s registered trademark or earlier filed trademark and to be applied for goods or services identical with or similar to those for which the registered trademark is protected or the earlier filed trademark is designated, and hence there exists a likelihood of confusion on relevant consumers, unless the consent of the proprietor of the said registered trademark or earlier filed trademark to the application has been given and is not obviously improper”.

2.    Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act

A trademark shall not be registered if such a mark is “identical with or similar to another person’s well-known trademark or mark, and hence there exists a likelihood of confusion on the relevant public or a likelihood of dilution of the distinctiveness or reputation of the said well-known trademark or mark, unless the proprietor of the said well-known trademark or mark consents to the application”.

3.    Article 30.1.12 of Trademark Act

     A trademark shall not be registered if such a mark is “identical with or similar to another person’s earlier used trademark and to be applied for goods or services identical with or similar to those for which the earlier used trademark is applied, where the applicant with the intent to imitate the earlier used trademark, being aware of the existence of the earlier used trademark due to contractual, regional, or business connections, or any other relationship with the proprietor of the earlier used trademark, files the application for registration, unless the proprietor of the said earlier used trademark consents to the application”.

HUGO BOSS Prevails in Taiwan Trademark Cancellation Case

On February 27, 2025, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) ruled in the favor of HUGO BOSS AG (“HUGO BOSS”), canceling the contested trademark “USHIO BOSS & device” after finding such trademark may cause confusion with the well-known brand “BOSS” and “HUGO BOSS” (See below).

The contested trademark, “USHIO BOSS & device” (no. 02343796, see below, hereafter “USHIO BOSS”), was filed by YU CHEN METAL DIE-CAST CO., LTD. (“YU CHEN”) on September 23, 2022, and granted on December 16, 2023, designated for use in goods in class 25, including belts, shoulder straps, belts for clothing, suspenders, etc. HUGO BOSS filed opposition on March 14, 2024, citing violations of Articles 30.1.10, and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

Before filing application for the contested trademark, YU CHEN has already filed and successfully registered a number of trademarks that feature combinations of “USHIOBOSS” and the shark icon (e.g., no. 01599368, no. 01059828, and no. 01583826, see below). YU CHEN therefore argued that these trademarks have co-existed with HUGO BOSS’s trademarks for years without actual confusion, and that since the contested trademark belongs to the same series, there should be confusion.  

TIPO did not side with YU CHEN. In its determination on February 27, 2025, TIPO found the registration of the contested trademark shall be canceled:

1.      Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act provides that a mark shall not be registered if such a mark is identical with or similar to another person’s registered trademark or earlier filed trademark and to be applied for goods or services identical with or similar to those for which the registered trademark is protected or the earlier filed trademark is designated, and hence there exists a likelihood of confusion on relevant consumers.

2.      On similarity, TIPO noted that in HUGO BOSS’s cited trademarks, the dominant portion is obviously “BOSS” and “HUGO BOSS”. As to YU CHEN’s contested trademark, “USHIO” and “BOSS” are the portions that would raise consumer’s attention. To this end, TIPO found that YU CHEN’s contested trademark, similarly, features the letter “BOSS”, and that the “USHIO” in Yu CHEN’s contested trademark also bears some degree of similarity with “HUGO”, since both include letters of “H”, “U”, and “O”. As such, there is visual, conceptual, and verbal similarity between YU CHEN’s and HUGO BOSS’s trademarks.

3.      On the designated goods, the contested trademark was applied for use in various kinds of belts and suspenders, which are similar or related to the products designated by HUGO BOSS’s trademarks, which cover clothing, shirts, belts, shawl, sash, etc.

4.      Moreover, based on the records submitted by HUGO BOSS, both its “BOSS” and “HUGO BOSS” trademarks have been recognized as well-known by TIPO, and have established strong brand recognition among the relevant consumers. Taiwan’s consumers would be more familiar with HUGO BOSS’s trademarks than with the contested trademark.

5.      Although YU CHEN argued that its previous trademarks have co-existed with HUGO BOSS’s trademarks for many years, TIPO nonetheless found those trademarks cited by YU CHEN actually feature one single word “USHIOBOSS”, not “USHIO” and “BOSS”, which were somehow dissimilar to the contested trademark. Besides, these trademarks have long expired and were no longer in use. As such, the mere facts that YU CHEN once registered “USHIOBOSS” were insufficient to prove the contested trademark could co-exist with HUGO BOSS’s trademarks without causing confusion.

6.      In view of the above, given the similarity between “USHIO BOSS” and “HUGO BOSS”, the relatedness of designated products, and the fact that “HUGO BOSS” and “BOSS” are well-known trademarks with which consumers are more familiar, TIPO ruled that the registration of the contested trademark may cause confusion with HUGO BOSS’s cited trademarks. Hence, the contested trademark was canceled accordingly.

 

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/OS0/OS0401_SCN3.jsp?issueNo=XpJ13RyT4a0tVKzJ6dmVXWkM2a1plMlBIcGdTUT09&l6=zh_TW&isReadBulletinen_US=&isReadBulletinzh_TW=true