Italian Brand BVLGARI Prevailed in Trademark Opposition Against “OMNIAAA & device”

 Bulgari S.P.A. (“Bulgari”) successfully cancelled the contested trademark “OMNIAAA & device”, convincing the Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) that the contested trademark may cause confusion with Bulgari’s well-known brand “OMNIA” (See below).

The contested trademark, “OMNIAAA & device” (Reg. No. 02421893, see below), was filed by OMNI AAA Company Ltd. (“OMNIAAA Company”) on June 12, 2024, and registered on December 16, 2024. The contested trademark covered products in Class 3, such as toner, moisturizing lotion, face cream, facial cream, sunscreen, makeup remover, shampoo, etc. Bulgari filed a trademark opposition on March 14, 2025, alleging that the registration of the contested trademark violated Articles 30.1.11 and 30.1.12 of the Trademark Act. 

On March 31, 2026, TIPO sided with Bulgari, cancelling the contested trademark based on Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act:

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 with or harm to the reputation or distinctiveness of such a well-known trademark.

2. Based on extensive evidence of trademark use in Taiwan, including the voluminous sales records between 2021-2024, marketing campaigns from 2019 to 2023, and news reports on social media, webpages, and successful product launches since 2003, such as “Omnia Bvlgari”, “Omnia Crystalline”, “Omnia Coral”, and “Omnia Pink Sapphire”, TIPO was convinced that by the filing date of the contested trademark, Bulgari’s “OMNIA” had become well-known in the field of perfume and fragrance.

3. On similarity, TIPO considered the word “OMNIAAA” to be the dominant portion of the contested trademark and opined that “OMNIAAA” and the well-known “OMNIA” are visually and phonetically similar to each other, both share the same word “OMNIA”, with a minor difference in the use of repeating letters “A” in the contested trademark.

4. “OMNIA” as a trademark is highly distinctive and has become famous due to Bulgari’s continuous use. Although OMNIAAA Company argued that Bulgari’s evidence was flawed because it contained the use of other trademark “BVLGARI”, TIPO disagreed. By referring to the marketing materials and advertisements submitted by Bulgari, TIPO elaborated that “OMNIA” is clearly visible to the ordinary consumers, and that it should be acceptable to use two or more trademarks on a single product. Hence, Bulgari’s supporting evidence is admissible. 

In view of the above, given the well-known status of “OMNIA”, the similarity between the two trademarks, and the fact that the contested trademark was registered to products that similarly could be used to adjust body odor and improve hygiene, TIPO concluded that the contested trademark may cause confusion with Bulgari’s well-known “OMNIA”. The contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

Source:  https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOjCMscrfuT3E7aSCODYDguldxDB7E3 

Chanel Successfully Cancelled “CHANTE’” Again in Trademark Opposition in Taiwan

 In a trademark opposition filed by Chanel SARL (“Chanel”), Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) sided with the fashion brand, cancelling the contested trademark “CHANTE’” over likelihood of confusion with Chanel’s iconic brand “CHANEL” (Reg. No. 000023823, see below).

The contested trademark, “CHANTE’” (Reg. No. 02396094, see below), was filed by Fei-Chang Apparel International Ltd. (“Fei Chang”) on June 21, 2023, and registered on August 16, 2024. In fact, Fei Chang once registered the same mark for Class 25 product (apparel), and was cancelled by TIPO in 2025 (See: https://tipnlaw.blogspot.com/2025/07/taiwans-ip-office-found-chante.html). This time, Fei Chang's mark covered services in Class 35, mainly retail services for clothing and apparel. Chanel filed opposition on October 24, 2024, alleging that registration of “CHANTE’” would still cause confusion with its famous brand “CHANEL”.

TIPO ruled in favor of Chanel on March 26, 2026, finding that the contested trademark should be cancelled in view of violation of 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 registered trademark, to be used in identical or similar goods or services, and hence may cause confusion among the relevant consumers.

2. Although Fei Chang argued that “CHANTE’” should be pronounced in French and its pronunciation should be quite different from “” CHANEL, TIPO found that visual similarity still exists, given that both trademarks consist of six letters, with the same first four letters “CHAN”. Besides, since French is not a common language in Taiwan, TIPO ruled that ordinary consumers would still find the two trademarks visually similar to each other.

3. TIPO noted that the contested trademark was registered for retail service for clothing, which is related to the apparel products designated by “CHANEL”. The service covered by “CHANTE’” is used to sell the product designated by “CHANEL”. Thus, TIPO considered the designated products and services relevant.

4. Moreover, based on the extensive evidence of trademark use, including the sales records, TIPO’s prior determinations, continuous news reports, and marketing materials, TIPO was convinced that “CHANEL” has been well-known in product categories like perfume, apparel, bags, and jewels, which warrants broader exclusivity.

In view of the above, given the similarity between the two trademarks, the relevancy between the designated services and products, and the strong brand recognition among Taiwan consumers, TIPO concluded that “CHANTE’” is confusingly similar to the famous “CHANEL”. Accordingly, the registration of the contested trademark was cancelled.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOjCc4XoPuFBMVgmzbXSKBM48SBKq90

Auto Giant BMW Scored A Win for its “BMW X3” Trademark

In a trademark opposition filed by BMW, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) sided with the German auto brand, cancelling the contested mark “X3” in view of the likelihood of confusion with BMW’s own “BMW X3” trademark (Reg. No. 01434801, see below).

The contested trademark, “X3” (Reg. No. 02408338, see below), was filed by Xu Bang Auto Supplies Co. Ltd. (“Xu Bang”) on January 26, 2024, and registered on October 16, 2024. The mark covered products in Class 12, including automative components, transmission systems for vehicles, tires, steering wheels, electric devices for vehicle, engine frames, car seat covers, hydraulic systems for vehicles, fuel tanks, etc. BMW filed opposition on January 16, 2025, alleging that the registration of “X3” violated Articles 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

On March 26, 2026, TIPO ruled in BMW’s favor, finding that:

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 may cause confusion among the relevant consumers.

2. TIPO noted that the contested trademark consists of a design of a dashboard and a stylized “X3”. However, TIPO considered the word “X3” to be the dominant element, and opined that the addition of the dashboard does not create or add new meaning to the word “X3”. Given that both BMW’s and Xu Bang’s trademarks contain “X3”, ordinary consumers would view the two trademarks visually, conceptually, and phonetically similar to each other.

3. BMW’s “BMW X3” is registered for products such as automobiles and its relevant components, which are related to the product categories designated by Xu Bang’s “X3”.

4. Further, “BMW X3” has established strong brand recognition due to BMW’s continuous marketing and product sales in Taiwan. Based on extensive evidence of trademark use, including the webpages, the physical stores, news reports, and successful sales of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generations of “BMW X3” since 2003, TIPO was convinced that consumers should be more familiar with BMW’s cited trademark. 

5. In view of the above, considering the similarity between the two trademarks, the relatedness of the product categories, and the strong brand reputation of “BMW X3”, TIPO concluded that Xu Bang’s “X3” would cause consumer confusion. The contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

Source:

https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOjCc4Xo%2FscceqOo9324u3N9Lquo1MH 

PUMA Prevailed in Trademark Opposition for Its Iconic Stripe Logos

In an opposition filed by PUMA SE (“PUMA”) against Wei Shen Shoes Co. Ltd. (“Wei Shen”), Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) found that Wei Shen’s contested trademark may cause confusion with PUMA’s stripe logos (Reg. No. 01781822 and 00087487, see below), and cancelled the contested trademark accordingly.

The contested trademark (Reg. No. 02422948, see below), was filed by Wei Shen on June 4, 2024, and registered on December 16, 2024. The mark covered products in Class 25, including shoes, cloth shoes, sandals, slippers, rain boots, leather shoes, sneakers, soles, and children’s shoes. PUMA filed an opposition on March 14, 2025, alleging that the registration of the contested trademark violated Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

On February 25, 2026, TIPO ruled in the favor of PUMA, finding that the contested trademark should be cancelled in view of Article 30.1.10:

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, designated for use in identical or similar goods or services, and hence there exists a likelihood of confusion among the relevant consumers.

2.        On similarity, TIPO noted that both Wei Shen’s and PUMA’s logos form the impression of a curve line that becomes thicker from the right to the left, with the right end of the tip tilted slightly up. While the style of the dotted lines, the angle of the curve, and the color presented are different, TIPO opined that such differences would be minor given that the logos usually are placed on the side of the shoes, which is not easy for consumers to notice and distinguish. Hence, the contested trademark is visually similar to PUMA’s logos.

3.        On the designated products, TIPO found both trademarks cover similar shoes products. The targeted customers and sales channels of the two trademarks overlap.

4.        Further, based on the records of trademark use submitted by PUMA, including the records of worldwide trademark registrations, the products sales, celebrity’s endorsements, marketing materials, expansion of local stores, and sponsorship of sports events, TIPO agreed that PUMA’s logos are distinctive and have established strong brand recognition. Consumers should be more familiar with PUMA’s logos, which should warrant broader scope of exclusivity.

In view of the similarity between the two trademarks, the overlap of product category, and the fact that PUMA’s logos are distinctive and have established strong brand recognition, TIPO concluded that the contested trademark may cause consumer’s confusion. Wei Shen’s contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOjAM0Rp%2FsJ2QqYXU%2Fq%2B5BQUc6PqWug

Rolex Prevailed in Trademark Opposition against “SOLEX”

In an opposition filed by Rolex S.A. (“Rolex”) against the contested trademark “SOLEX”, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) ruled that the contested trademark should be cancelled due to likelihood of confusion with Rolex’s iconic brand “ROLEX” (Reg. No. 00020923, see below).

The contested trademark, “SOLEX & device” (Reg. No. 02317003, see below), was filed on January 25, 2022, and registered on September 1, 2023. The trademark covered products in Class 16, including painting, poster, printed matters, drawings, photographs, portrait, oil paintings, etc. Rolex filed an opposition on November 30, 2023, alleging that registration of the contested trademark violated Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

TIPO sided with Rolex on February 26, 2026, finding the registration of the contested trademark violated Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act:

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 among the relevant consumers, or may harm the distinctiveness or reputation of such well-known trademark. 

2.        Based on the sales records, market surveys, prior TIPO’s and Taiwan court’s decisions, news reports, and extensive advertisements on magazines including BMW Magazine, GQ, and VOGUE from 2019 to 2021, TIPO affirmed that prior to the filing date of the contested trademark, “ROLEX” had become well-known among the consumers in the field of watch products.  

3.        On similarity, while the first letter of “SOLEX” is different from that of “ROLEX”, TIPO considered such difference to be minor. Besides, both “SOLEX” and “ROLEX” consist of five letters, and end with the same letters “OLEX”. In the entirety, TIPO opined that consumers would find the contested trademark visually and phonetically similar to “ROLEX”.

4.        TIPO further noted that Rolex’s brand has established strong recognition among the relevant consumers, and is actually used on related printed products, including catalogues, calendars, and magazines. Therefore, consumers should be more familiar with Rolex’s “ROLEX” trademark, which warrants broader scope of exclusivity of product category.

5.        Considering the well-known status of “ROLEX”, the similarity between the two trademarks, the relatedness between the product categories, and the strong brand recognition of Rolex’s “ROLEX”, TIPO concluded that the registration of the contested trademark may cause confusion with Rolex’s well-known trademark. The contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

 

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOjAMkdpPuve8MOS0VwZBLbK%2BwolEtM

Beiersdorf AG’s opposition failed as Taiwan’s IP Office found “NIVEA” dissimilar to “ravea”

In an opposition filed by Beiersdorf AG (“Beiersdorf”) against the trademark “ravea”, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) found the contested trademark dissimilar to Beiersdorf’s well-known “NIVEA” marks (Reg. No. 00039212, 00384064, 01316235, 01790601, 01521516, 02252012, see below), and denied the opposition.

The contested trademark, “ravea” (Reg. No. 02397299, see below), was filed by Bourtex Inc. (“Bourtex”) on November 28, 2023, and registered on August 16, 2024. The trademark covered products in Class 3 (including facial creams, lotions, perfumes, cosmetics, and skincare products) and services in Class 35 (including retail service for cosmetics and facial masks). Beiersdorf filed opposition on November 15, 2024, alleging that registration of “ravea” violated Articles 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

On February 26, 2026, TIPO sided with Bourtex, finding the contested trademark not similar to “NIVEA” and would not cause confusion:

1.        First, on the well-known status of Beiersdorf’s “NIVEA” trademarks, TIPO agreed that records of products sales, marketing campaigns from 2021 to 2024 in major sales channels, TIPO’s prior determinations, and advertising materials have sufficiently demonstrated that “NIVEA” is well-known in the fields of cosmetics and sunscreen products.

2.        On similarity, while Beiersdorf argued that both trademarks consist of five letters, and share the ending “vea/VEA”, TIPO considered the overall impressions differ. The pronunciation of “ra” and “NI” is distinct, and the differences in font, color, and stylization further reduce similarity. As such, the degree of similarity is low.

3.        TIPO acknowledged that the product and service categories of the contested trademark overlapped with those covered by Beiersdorf’s “NIVEA”. For example, “NIVEA” also covered products like soap, essence oils, cosmetics, fragrances, sunscreen, and hair conditioners.

4.        TIPO further noted that both “ravea” and “NIVEA” have no ordinary meaning, so they are inherently distinctive. Although consumers should be more familiar with “NIVEA” due to its extensive use, there is no evidence of actual confusion. TIPO also noted the co-existence of similar marks, such as “Trivea”, “SALVEA”, “ALIVEA”, and “AVEA” in Class 3, and found no basis to infer bad faith from Bourtex’s use of “vea”.

5.        In view of the above, although “NIVEA” is well-known, based on the low similarity between the two trademarks, the co-existence of other trademarks with similar combination of “vea”, the absence of evidence of actual confusion and Bourtex’s bad faith, TIPO concluded that “ravea” would not cause confusion with the well-known “NIVEA”. Beiersdorf’s opposition was denied accordingly.

 

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOjAMkcpvvlx1OtwugokxsoG6Kazs2q

Dior Came Out on Top in Trademark Opposition for its “CD” Icon

On February 26, 2026, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) ruled in the favor of French brand Dior, cancelling the contested trademark “CD & device” due to likelihood of confusion with Dior’s well-known “CD” icon (Reg. No. 01719065, see below).

The contested trademark, “CD & device” (Reg. No. 02363933, see below), was filed on April 24, 2023, and registered on March 16, 2024. The mark covered services in Class 41, including education, vocational training, coaching, and tutoring. Dior filed opposition on June 14, 2024, alleging that the registration of the contested trademark violated Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

TIPO sided with Dior on February 26, 2026, reasoning that:

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, therefore may cause consumer confusion, or harm or dilute the distinctiveness or reputation of such well-known trademark.

2.        Based on the supported evidence, including the continuous media coverage on ELLE, VOGUE, Bella, and Marie Claire from 2014 to 2022; the extensive marketing and advertising for products, records of trademark registrations, and TIPO’s prior determination, TIPO agreed that prior to the filing date of the contested trademark, Dior’s “CD” brand was already well-known in the field of cosmetics, perfume, and related products.

3.        On similarity, while the contested trademark consists of English letters “CD”, “Cut Dye Hair”, Chinese characters “剪染學苑”, and a scissor design, the large and stylized “C” and “D” constitute the dominant elements of the entire trademark. The registrant of the contested trademark argued that the use of “C” and “D” was originated from the idea to combine the initials of “Cut” and “Dye”, but TIPO found the subjective intent of the registrant irrelevant when determining similarity. From consumer’s viewpoint, the contested trademark would still be considered phonetically and visually similar to Dior’s trademark.

4.        Further, aside from cosmetic and perfume, records showed that Dior has expanded its “CD” brand to other product and service categories, such as beauty salon and hair spray. To the contrary, the evidence submitted to support the use of the contested trademark was quite thin. As such, consumers should be more familiar with Dior’s “CD” trademark.

In view of the above, considering that Dior’s “CD” trademark is well-known, that there is similarity between the two trademarks, and that Dior has established strong brand recognition among the consumers, TIPO concluded that the contested trademark may cause confusion. Accordingly, the registration of the contested trademark was cancelled.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOjAMgWp%2FvBUcXDTxLxJysOCO7gbgo%2F