PUMA SE Prevailed In Opposition Against the “FEISHOU & FEISHOU (stylized)” Trademark

On August 21, 2026, sports brand PUMA successfully challenged the registration for “FEISHOU & FEISHOU (stylized)” trademark. Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) cancelled the contested trademark after finding a likelihood of confusion with PUMA’s well-known “PUMA” logos (Reg. No. 00143672, 00131605, and 00088124, see below).

The contested trademark, “FEISHOU & FEISHOU (stylized)” (Reg. No.02464398, see below), was filed on December 30, 2024, and registered on July 1, 2025. The mark covered products in Class 12, including electric aircraft, remote-controlled vehicles, civilian drones, unmanned delivery aircraft, aerial photography drones, etc. PUMA filed opposition on September 26, 2025, alleging that the registration of the contested trademark violated Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

TIPO ruled in PUMA’s favor based on Article 30.1.11:

1.        Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act provides that a mark shall not be registered if such a mark is identical or similar to another’s well-known trademark, and hence may cause confusion in the relevant public, or may harm the reputation or dilute the distinctiveness of such well-known mark.

2.        TIPO affirmed PUMA’s iconic silhouette logo is well-known in Taiwan for footwear, apparel, and the relevant sports accessories. PUMA’s voluminous supporting records, including worldwide registrations of trademarks dating back to 1958, high-profile celebrity endorsements, and motorsport partnerships with Ferrari F1 (2004), BMW Motorsport(2012), and Porsche Motorsport (2019), alongside campaigns such as Jay Z’s “PUMA Jet”, sufficiently proved its strong brand recognition in Taiwan.

3.        On similarity, the contested trademark combines textual element “FEISHOU”, and a stylized graphic arrangement resembling a winged beast. PUMA’s well-known trademark, similarly, features the side silhouette of a leaping puma. TIPO observed that both trademarks feature the side silhouette of a beast leaping toward the left, positioned above textual elements. Therefore, the two trademarks share substantial visual and conceptual similarity.

4.        On the strength of the trademark, TIPO found that PUMA’s decades of extensive and diversified commercial use granted its mark a high degree of distinctiveness and broader exclusivity. In contrast, there was no evidence supporting the commercial use of the contested trademark.

5.        Although the contested trademark covered aerial vehicles in Class 12, TIPO considered that PUMA’s long-standing promotional presence in motorsports, private aviation, and luxury performance vehicles, make it likely that relevant consumers would associate specialized mobility products with PUMA’s strong and diversified brand universe.

Given the well-known status of the PUMA logos, the similarity between the two trademarks, the relatedness established through PUMA’s mobility partnerships, and consumers’ strong brand recognition, TIPO concluded that registration of the contested trademark may cause confusion with PUMA’s well-known icon. The contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.   

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOnCcYVpPsINtt3nqGJ9rDnB9movl1O

OpenAI Prevailed in Trademark Opposition Against Z.AI’s “ChatGLM”

On August 27, 2026, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) ruled in the favor of OpenAI OPCO LLC (“OpenAI”) in its opposition against Z.AI’s “ChatGLM”, finding the contested trademark to be confusingly similar to OpenAI’s “CHATGPT” (See below).

The contested trademark, “ChatGLM” (Reg. No. 02401552, see below), was filed by Z.AI on September 20, 2023, and registered on September 16, 2024. The mark covered products in Class 9, including computer software, downloadable computer application software, humanoid robots with communication and learning functions for assistance and reception, downloadable computer programs for artificially generating human speech and text, programs and software for natural language processing, generation, understanding, and analysis, etc. OpenAI filed trademark opposition on December 2, 2024, alleging that the contested trademark violated Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

TIPO found in the favor of OpenAI based on Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act:

1.      Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act provides that a mark shall not be registered if such a mark is identical or similar to another’s registered trademark, to be used in identical or similar goods or services, and hence there exists likelihood of confusion in the relevant public.

2.      While Z.AI contended that “Chat” is of low distinctiveness because similar trademarks have been widely adopted in the relevant markets, TIPO found these arguments unpersuasive. TIPO held the view that both OpenAI’s and Z.AI’s trademarks share the same structure, i.e., both are 7-letter words, consisting of the same initial 4 letters (i.e., Chat/CHAT) and another 3 letters with “G”. Ordinary consumers are likely to find “ChatGLM” to be visually and phonetically similar to “CHATGPT”.

3.      TIPO further found the designated products of the contested trademark highly relevant to those covered by OpenAI’s “CHATGPT”. For example, downloadable computer programs for artificially generating human speech and text, and the software and programs for natural language processing are related to OpenAI’s AI chatbot and the relevant product categories in terms of their nature, function, purpose, and targeted customers.

4.      TIPO acknowledged that “CHATGPT” stands for “Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer”, which could be descriptive. However, since OpenAI’s continuous and extensive use in 2022, such trademark has acquired secondary meaning and gathered considerable recognition from the relevant consumers.

5.      Moreover, TIPO found that the evidence of trademark usage from Z.AI insufficient to prove its market recognition. The records were defective for either postdating the filing date or being undated. On the other hand, the records submitted by OpenAI, including evidence showing its worldwide adoption, global and local media coverages, and hundreds of local textbooks and essays introducing the usage of “CHATGPT”, convinced TIPO that local consumers are more familiar with OpenAI’s trademark.

In view of the above, given the similarity between the two trademarks, the relatedness between the designated products, the acquired distinctiveness of “CHATGPT”, and the high market recognition, TIPO concluded that the registration of “ChatGLM” may cause confusion with OpenAI’s “CHATGPT”. The contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

 

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOkAc8QoPuoKcBpmqoFKMUFuW4VG0go

Yahoo inc. Prevailed in Invalidation Action Against “A虎” Trademark

 On July 22, 2026, Yahoo Inc. successfully invalidated a registered trademark “A虎”, convincing Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) that such contested trademark would cause confusion with its well-known “YAHOO!” and “雅虎” trademarks (see below).

The contested trademark, “A虎” (Reg. No. 02166976, see below), was filed by Charisma Technology Co., Ltd. (“Charisma”) on December 18, 2020, and registered on September 1, 2021. The mark covered services in Class 42, including computer data processing, web design, online data storage services, software as a service (SaaS), and cloud computing. Yahoo Inc. filed invalidation action on July 4, 2024, alleging that the registration of “A虎” violated Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

TIPO ruled in Yahoo Inc.’s favor based on Article 30.1.11, reasoning that:

1.      Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act provides that 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 in the relevant public or a likelihood of dilution of the distinctiveness or reputation of the said well-known trademark or mark.

2.      Here, according to the evidence submitted by Yahoo Inc., including the continuous and extensive use of trademark in its internet search services, e-commerce, mobile phone app, subscription services, and TIPO’s own decisions throughout the period of 1998 to 2020, “雅虎” has established well-known status in the field of world wide web information service Taiwan.

3.      On similarity, ordinary consumers would pronounced the contested trademark like [eiˈhu] or [aˈhu], while Yahoo Inc.’s “雅虎” may sound like [jaˈhu]. Visually, both trademarks end with the same Chinese character “虎” (“Hu”). Hence, visually and phonetically, “A虎” is similar to the well-known “雅虎” trademark.

4.      Although both “A虎” and “雅虎” have no specific meaning and are distinctive, due to Yahoo Inc.’s long term and extensive trademark use, consumers in Taiwan should be more familiar with “雅虎” than “A虎”.

5.      Moreover, the services covered by the contested trademark, such as computer data processing, cloud computing, etc., are quite related to Yahoo Inc.’s, such as internet search engine service and email services.

In view of the above, given the well-known status of Yahoo Inc.’s trademark, the visual and verbal similarity, the strong brand recognition of “雅虎” among the relevant consumers, and the relatedness between the designated services of trademarks, TIPO concluded that Charisma’s “A虎” would cause confusion with Yahoo Inc.’s ”雅虎”. The contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOmCMoVpftJE5v4UuotTBkCmFEpp969

Taiwan’s IP Office cancels “DarkKNIGHT” Trademark Following Opposition by DC Comics

On June 30, 2026, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) cancelled the contested trademark “DarkKNIGHT” following DC Comics’ opposition, finding the contested trademark confusingly similar to DC Comics’ iconic trademark for its caped crusader (See below, available at: https://www.warnerbros.com/movies/dark-knight).

The contested trademark, “DarkKNIGHT” (Reg. No. 02426026, see below), was filed on April 24, 2024, and registered on January 1, 2025, by Chimera Multinational Co. Ltd. (“Chimera”), a company specializing in heat transfer applications such as PU and PET films. The mark covered heat transfer films, industrial adhesive films, waterproof plastic films (not for package), etc. DC Comics filed opposition on March 31, 2025, alleging that registration of “DarkKNIGHT” would cause confusion with its well-known “The Dark Knight” trademark, and thus shall be cancelled according to Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

TIPO ruled in DC Comics’ favor on June 30, 2026, finding that:

1.      “The Dark Knight” was the title of DC Comics’ 2008 blockbuster superhero movie, and has sustained worldwide recognition. Comprehensive global marketing campaigns, extensive merchandise licensing (e.g., DVDs, phone charms, keychains, Bluetooth headsets, cosmetics, binoculars, and MP3 players), and the continuous multi-platform media exposure (e.g., YouTube, HBO, etc.), sufficiently established that prior to the filing date of the contested trademark, “The Dark Knight” as a trademark had been well-known in Taiwan for comic books, movies, and the relevant merchandise.

2.      On similarity, the contested trademark is nearly identical to the well-known “The Dark Knight Trademark”, differing only in capitalization and the omission of the definite article “The”. Ordinary consumers would find “DarkKNIGHT” visually, conceptually, and verbally similar to “The Dark Knight”.

3.      Additionally, DC Comics has established strong brand recognition for its “The Dark Knight” trademark, expanding into a wide array of consumer products, including apparel, toys, stationery, video games, watches, etc. Consumers should be more familiar with DC Comics’ well-known trademark.

4.      Although the contested trademark was designated for industrial film goods, the underlying technology, i.e., using heat or pressure to transfer text or image onto substrates, is routinely adopted in manufacturing apparel, toys, and 3C accessories, the goods associated with DC Comics’ merchandise. TIPO therefore considered there is relatedness between the respective scopes of goods.

5.      In view of the well-known status of “The Dark Knight”, the high similarity between the marks, the commercial connection between the products, and the strong brand recognition, TIPO concluded that the registration of the contested trademark would cause confusion with DC Comics’ well-known “The Dark Knight”. Chimera’s contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOmAssdrPvFuums0kvFzAgngnGhO2d2

ING GROEP’s Trademark Opposition For Its Lion Logo Failed

On July 29, 2026, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) denied a trademark opposition filed by Dutch financial giant ING GROEP N.V. (“ING”), finding that the contested trademark, while featuring a lion’s head, would not cause confusion with ING’s iconic lion logos (Reg. No. 00059397, 00059410, 00110219, 00110222, and 00143044, see below).

The contested trademark (Reg. No. 02373510, see below) was filed by Fu-Da Real Estate Co. Ltd. (“Fu-Da”) on October 18, 2023, and registered on May 1, 2024. The contested trademark covered various services in Class 36, including real estate sales, office sales and leasing, apartment rental, real estate leasing brokerage, apartment rental agency services, real estate agency, financial valuation, real estate investment, etc. ING filed opposition on July 31, 2024, alleging that registration of the contested trademark violated Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

TIPO did not rule in ING’s favor, finding that:

1.        Although both ING’s and Fu-Da’s trademarks feature the image of a lion, the style and overall expression are different. Fu-Da’s lion was embedded within a dark shield, with crowned head flanked by decorative laurel leaves. ING’s lion, however, presenting a full-body and side-lying lion with a curled tail. The additional word element “ING” could further distinguish Fu-Da’s lion head from ING’s. Hence, the degree of similarity is low.

2.        There is minor overlap in the designated service categories, such as apartment rental and real estate leasing, between the two marks. Nonetheless, ING’s trademark also covered other financial service areas, which are different from Fu-Da’s real estate services in terms of the nature and purpose.

3.        More importantly, ING’s evidence was insufficient to show that prior to the filing date of the contested trademark, ING’s lion logo has gained well-known status in Taiwan. The evidence of trademark use was either undated, or later than the filing date of the contested trademark.

4.        Moreover, using lion as a trademark in Class 36 is not rare. TIPO’s records showed that there are quite some other trademarks similarly featuring images of lion registered for the same service scope. Consumers should be quite versed in differentiating these various types of lion images. No actual confusion was found.

5.        In view of the above, even though there is partial overlap in the service categories, given the low degree of similarity, the lack of evidence showing actual confusion, Fu-Da’s bad faith, or harm to ING’s trademark, and the co-existence of other registered trademarks that also feature image of lion, TIPO concluded that registration of the contested trademark was not based on bad faith to imitate, and would not cause confusion with ING’s lion logo or harm its reputation.

ING’s opposition based on Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 was denied accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOnAMgUpPsPddxlKDsoU%2FKIGx8tG4xk

Taiwan’s IP Office Cancels "HUKO" Trademark Due to Likelihood of Confusion with "HUGO BOSS"

On July 28, 2026, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) cancelled the trademark registration for “HUKO (Stylized)”, ruling in favor of German fashion brand Hugo Boss AG (“Hugo Boss”) after finding the contested mark confusingly similar to Hugo Boss’s iconic registered trademarks (e.g., Reg. Nos. 02377329, 02400729, 02270753, and 00478042, see below).

The contested trademark, “HUKO (Stylized)” (Reg. No. 02407749, see below), was filed by Guangzhou Huke Technology Co., Ltd. on April 2, 2024, and registered on October 16, 2024. The contested trademark covered goods in Class 3, including cosmetics, makeup, facial masks, perfumes, sunscreens, nail polish, shampoos, essential oils, and toothpaste. Hugo Boss filed an opposition on January 14, 2025, alleging that the registration of the contested trademark violated Articles 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Taiwan’s Trademark Act.

On July 28, 2026, TIPO ruled in the favor of Hugo Boss, finding that:

1.      The dominant visual and textual portions of both marks consist of four-letter arrangements starting with “HU” and ending with “O”, differing only by a single letter (i.e., “K” vs. “G”). Phonetically, “HUKO” and “HUGO” share identical first syllables and highly similar overall pronunciation, creating a relatively high degree of visual and verbal similarity.

2.      The retail, wholesale, and online ordering services for cosmetics and perfumery covered by Hugo Boss’s cited marks are related to the personal care goods designated by the contested trademark. They both serve similar purposes and meet similar consumer demands.

3.      Hugo Boss demonstrated substantial brand fame and consumer recognition in Taiwan for its "HUGO" fragrance and cosmetic product lines through official channels, department store counters, and extensive promotional campaigns. In contrast, the registrant of the contested mark failed to submit any supportive evidence of use.

In view of the above, TIPO concluded that the registration of the contested trademark violates Article 30.1.10 of Taiwan's Trademark Act because it creates a likelihood of consumer confusion. The registration of "HUKO (Stylized)" was cancelled accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOnAM4SpPty9nHCvSznyt5auFPGBPGA

Crocodile International’s Opposition Over Its Iconic Crocodile Trademark Failed

On July 28, 2026, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) denied a trademark opposition filed by Crocodile International Pte Ltd. (“CIP”), finding that the contested trademark, while featuring two cartoonish crocodiles, would not cause confusion with CIP’s classic “Crocodile” trademarks (e.g., Reg. No. 00785647, 00158414, 00149758, and 02293801).

The contested trademark, “Cute Mother & Son Crocodiles” (Reg. No. 02442085, see below), was filed by Lurng Furng Development Ltd. (“Lurng Furng”) on August 20, 2024, and registered on March 16, 2025. The contested trademark covered Class 25 goods, including clothing, shoes, slippers, raincoats, sandals, belts, casual wear, sportswear, and undershirts. CIP filed opposition on May 27, 2025, alleging that the registration of the contested trademark violated Articles 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

TIPO sided with Lurng Furng on July 28, 2026, reasoning that:

1.    The contested trademark consists of two personified cute crocodiles standing back-to-back to each other, with their heads facing to different directions. While CIP’s cited trademarks also feature crocodile, given that crocodile is a common animal, when assessing similarity, one should consider the differences in design, style, and touch. In this respect, the crocodiles displayed in CIP’s cited trademarks are different in their overall appearance, design concept, facial expression, and posture. As such, CIP’s crocodiles should be dissimilar to Lurng Furng’s.

2.    Additionally, upon research, registered trademarks that feature the theme of crocodiles have been widely adopted across the industries in Taiwan. Hence, trademarks that only feature image of crocodile would be less distinctive. It is true that CIP’s cited trademarks were recognized as well-known in apparel and footwear, but consumers should be able to distinguish the contested trademark from CIP’s based on the differences in style and appearance.

3.    In light of the above, considering the dissimilarity between the two trademarks, the weak distinctiveness of crocodile design, and the long co-existence of other trademarks that also feature crocodile images, the contested trademark is unlikely to cause confusion among the consumers. CIP’s opposition was denied accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOnAM4cpPtFg30OXGt9ddvi6ycQopw9