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

Spanish Brand TOUS Prevailed in Trademark Opposition for its “Tous Bear” Icon

On February 12, 2026, Spanish brand S. TOUS S.L. (“TOUS”) prevailed in its trademark opposition against the contested trademark “40 & device”, convincing Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) that the contested trademark may create confusion with TOUS’s popular “Tous Bear” icon (Reg. No. 01146016, see below).

The contested trademark, “40 & Device” (Reg. No. 02307204, see below), was filed by APM Monaco S.A.M. on October 6, 2022, and registered on July 16 ,2023. The contested trademark was designated for use in Class 14 goods, including jewelry, rings, necklaces, watches, bracelets, etc.

TOUS filed an opposition on September 1, 2023, 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 TOUS’s favor based on Article 30.1.10, reasoning that:

1.        Both trademarks depict a bear in circular shape. The contested trademark places a number “40” in the center, while TOUS’s trademark contains three dots that represent the bear’s eyes and nose. Since both trademarks are registered for use in jewelry and luxury, which are typically small in size, the aforesaid differences may be too minor for the consumers to notice during the purchasing process. In other words, the bear contour constitutes the dominant element, and consumers of ordinary degree of care would consider both trademarks conceptually and visually similar.

2.        On the issue of designated products, both trademarks cover precious metal ornaments, such as rings, bracelets, necklaces, watches, and jewelry. As such, the designated products of the two trademarks overlap.

3.        While both trademarks are distinctive, evidence of trademark use shows that TOUS’s trademark has established strong recognition in Taiwan. For example, the record includes continuous media coverage between 2009 and 2022 across internet platforms, blogs, and forums, and the appointment of the sales agent in Taiwan. Hence, consumers should be more familiar with TOUS’s trademark.

4.        Further, both trademarks are actually used on earrings, rings, and small ornaments that incorporate a bear-shaped contour. Because these products usually are small in size and often feature similar color designs, ordinary consumers may find it difficult to distinguish the differences in the bears’ facial details.

In view of the above, given the similarity between the trademarks, the overlap of the designated product category, TOUS’s strong brand recognition, and likelihood of consumer confusion, TIPO concluded that the contested trademark violated Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act. The registration of the contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

 

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOiCMoWpvsj0thJkyNt%2FEB2XkWceYmi

Bandai Prevailed in Trademark Opposition for Its “GASHAPON” Mark

On January 29, 2026, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) ruled in favor of Bandai Co. Ltd. (“Bandai”), cancelling the contested trademark due to the similarity with Bandai’s iconic “GASHAPON” trademark (Reg. No. 02181227, see below).

The contested trademark, “蛋樂寶COFFEE & GASHAPON & device” (Reg. No. 02229259, see below), was filed on June 28, 2021, and registered on June 16, 2022, designated for use in Class 35 services, including retail and wholesale of household daily necessities, online shopping, shopping malls, convenience stores, department stores, export and import agency services, grocery stores, etc. Bandai filed an opposition on September 14, 2022, alleging that registration of the contested trademark violated Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

TIPO found in favor of Bandai based on Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act. In its decision, TIPO held that:

1.        The contested trademark consists of the Chinese words “蛋樂寶”, the English words “COFFEE & GASHAPON”, and a design depicting a capsule toy vending machine. Since both Bandai’s trademark and the contested trademark contain the word “GASHAPON”, there is verbal and conceptual similarity. Besides, as Bandai has been famous for its capsule toys, the design of a capsule toy vending machine in the contested trademark may further enhance the association with Bandai’s “GASHAPON” trademark. Hence, the contested trademark was found similar to Bandai’s “GASHAPON” trademark.

2.        Based on the registered service categories, both trademarks relate to retail activities involving daily household goods. Additionally, according to the evidence submitted by Bandai, the contested trademark has been used in advertising toys, capsule toys, and collectible figures, which overlap with Bandai’s business.

3.        In view of the extensive evidence submitted by Bandai, including the news reports from DIG JAPAN!, GirlStyle, Japan Walker, and Toy Journal; the records of product sales and market share; and the trademark registrations in U.S., Japan, China, Hong Kong, Vietnam, and Korea, Bandai has established strong brand image for its “GASHAPON”. Consumers are more familiar with Bandai’s trademark, which should be awarded with broader scope of protection.

Based on the above, given the similarity between the two trademarks, the overlap of services categories, and the strong brand image of Bandai’s “GASHAPON”, TIPO concluded that the contested trademark may create confusion. As such, registration of the contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOiB8oSo%2FtvA4eCQuftWhOvnl%2BytQtW

Giorgio Armani Successful in Trademark Opposition Against “EASDA”

On January 27, 2026, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) ruled in favor of the Italian brand Giorgio Armani (“Armani”) in a trademark opposition, finding the contested trademark was likely to cause confusion with Armani’s iconic “GA” logo (Reg. No. 02160471, see below).

The contested trademark, “EASDA & device” (Reg. No. 02418967, see below), was filed on May 21, 2024, and registered on December 1, 2024. The trademark covered various products in Class 18, including purses, backpacks, suitcases, handbags, etc. Armani filed an opposition on February 27, 2025, alleging that the contested trademark violated Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act. 

On January 27, 2026, TIPO sided with Armani based on Article 30.1.10, reasoning that:

1.        Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act prohibits the registration of a trademark if such a mark is identical or similar to another’s registered trademark, used for identical or similar goods or services, and hence may create confusion among the relevant consumers.

2.        The contested trademark features a circular design containing two stylized letters, “E” and “A”, and the word “EASDA” underneath. Armani’s “GA” logo, similarly, demonstrates a circular design with embedded letters “G” and “A”. While the specific letters differ, the overall visual impression of the contested trademark resembles Armani’s cited trademark. 

3.        On the designated products, both trademarks covered a variety of handbags, backpacks, and briefcases, which serve similar purposes and share the same trade channels. Hence, TIPO found a significant overlap in the designated goods. 

4.        Armani’s trademark is highly distinctive, and has established strong brand recognition in Taiwan. Supported by evidence including the sales records, catalogues, social media presence, and coverage on publications such as ELLE, VOGUE, and InStyle, TIPO opined that Taiwan’s consumers should be more familiar with Armani’s trademark.

Given that the contested trademark is similar to Armani’s “GA” logo, is registered for similar product category, and that consumers are more familiar with Armani’s cited logo, TIPO concluded that the registration of the contested trademark may create consumer confusion. Accordingly, the contested trademark was cancelled. 

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOiBMcWrfvbwYX72fm%2BQX5jozoNH6ck

Starbucks Prevailed in Opposition Proceeding Against “R/R” Trademark

 On January 22, 2026, Starbucks Corporation (“Starbucks”) successfully secured the cancellation of a trademark featuring “R/R”, convincing Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) that such trademark is confusingly similar to its iconic “Starbucks Reserve Star & R” logos (Reg. No. 01578229, 01902958, and 01458517, see below).

The contested trademark, “R/R” (Reg. No. 02437016, see below), was filed on March 18, 2024, and granted on February 16, 2025, designated for use in services in Class 43, including beverage shops, restaurants, tea houses, coffee shops, beer shops, bars, buffet restaurants, banquet catering services, etc. Starbucks filed an opposition on May 16, 2025, alleging that such registration violated Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

TIPO ruled in Starbucks’ favor on January 22, 2026 pursuant to Article 30.1.10, 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, hence would cause confusion among the relevant consumers.

2.        The contested trademark consists of two letters “R” separated by a horizontal line “—”, whereas Starbucks’ cited trademarks consist of a star logo, a horizontal line “—”, and the letter “R”. The horizontal line “—” and the letter “R” would constitute the dominant portion of both trademarks. The presence of the star logo in Starbucks’ trademarks is insufficient to negate the overall similarity based on visual, phonetical, and conceptual impressions.

3.        On the designated services, both trademarks cover food, beverage, and restaurant services. The service categories of the contested trademark overlap with those covered by Starbucks’ cited trademarks.

4.        Based on records of trademark use, Starbucks’ cited trademarks have established strong brand image among the consumers in the local market, including the expansion of stores, worldwide trademark registrations, products sales, advertising materials, media coverage in GQ, VOUE, Marie Claire, ELLE, and BAZAAR, and marketing campaigns throughout 2014 and 2020. To the contrast, there was insufficient evidence demonstrating actual use of the contested trademark. Hence, consumers should be more familiar with Starbucks’ cited trademarks.

In view of the above, given the similarity between the trademarks, the overlap of the designated services, and Starbucks’ strong brand recognition, TIPO concluded that the contested trademark may cause consumer confusion. The registration of the contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOiBcgXpfsiAoib%2FOnYPEX1CXWCiTvf