Lotte Successfully Cancelled A Mark Similar to Its Well-known “LOTTE Custard Cake” Trade Dress

 On May 29, 2026, Lotte Confectionery Co. Ltd. (“Lotte”) prevailed in a trademark opposition against “Custard & device”, convincing Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) that such contested trademark is too similar to the Lotte’s famous “LOTTE Custard Cake” (i.e., the front view of Lotte’s popular custard cake, see below). 

The contested trademark, “Custard & device” (Reg. No. 02262558, see below), was filed by En Maw Trading Co. Ltd. (“En Maw”) on April 29, 2022, and registered on November 16, 2022, covering a variety of goods in Class 30, such as desserts, pastries, cookies, cream puffs, bread, cakes, sponge cakes, cheesecakes, custard pastries, muffins, and pies. Lotte filed opposition on February 15, 2023, citing violation of Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

On May 29, 2026, TIPO ruled in Lotte’s favor, finding that En Maw’s contested trademark should be cancelled for violating 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 other’s well-known trademark, and hence may cause confusion among the relevant consumers, or harm the distinctiveness or reputation of such well-known trademark. 

2.     Based on the extensive sales and marketing records submitted by Lotte between 2018 and 2022, including Nielsen’s sales reports, social media posts, and advertising materials in major local channels such as 7-11, Family Mart, Hi-Life, PX Mart, and Carrefour, TIPO noted that the cited trademark, namely, the front view of Lotte’s “LOTTE Custard Cake” product has become well-known among the consumers due to its popularity in Taiwan. 

3.     On similarity, TIPO observed that both Lotte’s and EN Maw’s trademarks consist of a white rectangular, red English letter “Custard”, decorative yellow flowers and green leaves, and cut custard cake with visible filling. In the entirety, TIPO found ordinary consumers would find En Maw’s trademark visually similar to Lotte’s “LOTTE Custard Cake”.

4.     While En Maw argued that “Custard”, drawings of custard cakes, and decorative yellow flowers are merely descriptive, TIPO reasoned that the combination of all of these elements, together with Lotte’s extensive and continuous use and sales, are sufficient to make image of Lotte’s product distinctive and well-known among the local customers. Besides, there was evidence of consumer’s complaint about the similarity of products, proving the existence of actual confusion. 

5.     Although En Maw contended that its trademark has been used for more than 20 years and should be distinct enough to co-exist, TIPO disagreed, finding instead that records submitted by En Maw were defective. The lack of actual use of trademark and concrete sales records renders En Maw’s evidence insufficient to prove that its trademark has also been known by the relevant consumers. 

In view of the well-known status of Lotte’s “LOTTE Custard Cake”, the similarity between En Maw’s and Lotte’s trademarks, the overlap of product categories, and Lotte’s strong brand recognition, TIPO determined that En Maw’s contested trademark may cause consumer’s confusion. Accordingly, En Maw’s “Custard & Device” mark was cancelled.

Source: 

TIPO’s decision: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOhBckXo%2FurWeFLICdIlgOrPoK7dJ2q

Lotte’s Custard Cake: https://online.uni-prosperity.com.tw/zh/lotte/1411001500101.html

Taiwan’s IP Office Cancelled “雪SERENE ALLURE” Over Confusion with Chanel’s “ALLURE” Trademark

On May 28, 2026, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) sided with fashion brand Chanel, finding the contested trademark “雪SERENE ALLURE” is confusingly similar to Chanel’s “ALLURE” and “ROUGE ALLURE” trademarks (Reg. No. 00625777, 00846557, and 02000565, see below). 

The contested trademark, “雪SERENE ALLURE” (Reg. No. 02470422, see below), was filed on December 20, 2024, and registered on August 1, 2025, covering products in Class 3, including cosmetics, perfume, skin care and sunscreen products. Chanel filed opposition on October 29, 2025, alleging that the registration of the contested trademark violated Articles 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

TIPO ruled in Chanel’s favor based on Article 30.1.10. In its determination made on May 28, 2026, TIPO found that:

1.        The contested trademark consists of Chinese character “雪”, a flower design, and English letters “SERENE ALLURE”. From the viewpoint of ordinary consumes, “ALLURE” would constitute both Chanel’s and the contested trademark’s dominant element, which renders the contested trademark similar to Chanel’s cited trademarks.

2.        The contested trademark covered cosmetics and skincare products, while Chanel’s “ALLURE” covered perfumes, essential oils, colognes, and hairspray. Both pertain to skincare, beauty, deodorant, and personal hygiene. Hence, the product categories overlap.

3.        Chanel’s “ALLURE” is highly distinctive, and has been recognized as well-known in the relevant consumers by TIPO’s prior determinations. Records of trademark use established that prior to the filing date of the contested trademark, Chanel has been using “ALLURE” in its fragrance and colognes products. To the contrast, there is no evidence supporting the actual use of the contested trademark. As a result, consumers should be more familiar with Chanel’s “ALLURE” trademark.

In view of the similarity between the trademarks, the overlap of product categories, and the strong brand recognition of Chanel’s “ALLURE”, TIPO concluded that the contested trademark may cause confusion with the well-known “ALLURE” trademark. The registration of the contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOhBc4dpfsr1bx1iPmp7ULzrvSDWJN3

General Electric Company Prevailed in Trademark Opposition for its Iconic “GE” Brand

On April 29, 2026, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) cancelled a trademark “泉科綠能G & device”, finding the contested trademark to be confusingly similar to General Electric Company‘s (“General Electric”) famous “GE” trademarks (e.g., Reg. No. 00001021, 00091183, 00553406, 00916541, 00124581, 00124595, 00124582, 01334183, and 01334187, see below).

The contested trademark, “泉科綠能G & device” (Reg. No. 02370628, see below), was filed on September 7, 2023, and registered on April 16, 2024, covering various kinds of service in Class 37, including construction of hydroelectric power plant, wind power plant, wave power plant, solar power plant, and geothermal power plant; mechanical installation, maintenance and repair; gas stations, vehicle charging stations, vehicle battery charging services, etc. General Electric filed trademark opposition on July 15, 2024, alleging that registration of the contested trademark violated Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

In its determination rendered on April 29, 2026, TIPO found the contested trademark shall be cancelled 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 among the relevant consumers, or harm the distinctiveness or reputation of such well-known trademark.

2.        On the issue of well-known status, TIPO observed that General Electric’s cited trademarks were registered in Taiwan as early as 1954, and have since been used in wide range of products and services, such as electrical products, computers, household appliances, medical equipments, engineering plastics, building materials, transportation machinery, engines, power plant construction, etc. General Electric also actively participated in various kinds of major industrial projects in Taiwan since 1950, including international airport, national highways, cycle power generation, and energy solution. Its iconic “GE” brand was recognized as one of the most valuable brands, and has been ranked among the 2000 worldwide leading enterprises by Forbes. Thus, TIPO affirmed that prior to the filing date of the contested trademark, “GE” trademarks had been well-known among the general public in Taiwan.  

3.        On the issue of similarity, while the contested trademark consists of an image of flame, the letter “G” with three horizontal lines, and the Chinese characters “泉科綠能”, TIPO particularly noted that the arrangement of the letter “G” and the three parallel lines bear similarity with English letters “GE”, which resembles General Electric’s “GE” icons. Indeed, the variation of lengths of the three horizontal lines resembles the English letter “E”. Therefore, TIPO concluded that the contested trademark is visually, phonetically, and conceptually similar to the “GE” icons.

4.        Given that General Electric’s “GE” icons are distinctive and have been used in Taiwan in various services and products for a very long time, TIPO agreed that the relevant consumers would be more familiar with General Electric’s “GE” brand. Further, the services covered by the contested trademark are related to energy and electricity, which overlap with the categories covered by General Electric’s trademarks. 

In view of the similarity between the two trademarks, the well-known status and strong brand recognition of General Electric’s “GE” brand, and the overlap of service categories, TIPO concluded that the contested trademark may cause confusion with the well-known “GE” trademarks. The registration of the contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

 

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOgB84drPtKF96n1WG%2BiuzGkAirhkXo

Apple Successfully Challenged “蘋果雞 APPLE FRIED CHICKEN & DEVICE” in Trademark Opposition

On April 28, 2026, Apple Inc. prevailed in trademark opposition against “蘋果雞 APPLE FRIED CHICKEN & DEVICE”, convincing the Taiwan IP Office (“TIPO”) that the contested trademark may cause confusion with the tech giant’s well-known “蘋果”, “APPLE”, and Apple logo (Reg. No. 00038248, 01457997, and 01620273, see below).

The contested trademark, “蘋果雞 APPLE FRIED CHICKEN & DEVICE” (Reg. No. 02399443, see below), was filed on November 2, 2023, and registered on September 1, 2024, covering services in Class 35, including food retail and wholesale, beverages retail and wholesale, business management assistance, marketing, consumer analysis for commercial or marketing purposes, marketing, online marketing, telephone marketing services, price comparison services, etc. Apple Inc. filed opposition on November 29, 2024, 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 Apple Inc., 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 among the relevant consumers, or damage the distinctiveness or reputation of such well-known trademark. 

2.        Based on evidence submitted by Apple Inc., including TIPO’s prior decisions, news reports on Forbes, Interbrand (No. 1 Best Global Brands 2014 - 2024), and BrandZ (No. 1 brand in 2022), and Apple Inc.’s continuous and extensive trademark use in its diversified products and services, TIPO affirmed that “蘋果”, “APPLE”, and the apple logo had been well-known before the application of the contested trademark.

3.        On similarity, TIPO noted that the contested trademark portrays a chicken’s head, crest, wing, and beak within the contour of an apple, together with Chinese characters “蘋果” (i.e., “apple” in Chinese), and “APPLE FRIED CHICKEN”. From the viewpoint of ordinary consumers, both Apple Inc.’s trademarks and the contested trademark feature “APPLE”, “蘋果”, and image of apple. As such, the contested trademark is visually, phonetically, and conceptually similar to Apple Inc.’s well-known trademarks. 

4.        While TIPO acknowledged that both trademarks are distinctive, the facts that Apple Inc.’s trademarks have been used in wide range of merchandise and services, such as stationery, Apple Café, snacks, apparel, handbags, and hats, tipped the scale to Apple Inc.’s favor. There is reasonable likelihood that Apple Inc. would expand its service territory to those designated by the contested trademark. Besides, from consumer’s perspective, Apple Inc.’s products, such as computers, software, smartphone, etc., may be distributed or promoted through the kind of services covered by the contested trademark (e.g., online marketing, price comparison services, etc.). The service designated by the contested trademark is related to the products covered by Apple Inc.’s well-known trademarks. 

5.        Further, given the well-known status, consumers are more familiar with Apple Inc.’s trademarks, which should be awarded with broader exclusivity.

In light of the above, given the well-known status of Apple Inc.’s trademarks, the similarity between the two trademarks, the relatedness between the designated services and Apple Inc.’s products, and Apple Inc.’s strong brand recognition among the relevant consumers, TIPO concluded that the contested trademark may cause confusion with Apple Inc.’s aforesaid well-known trademarks. The registration of the contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOgBMYdpPvpmKJhxtUfVCBBpJ6tBAMv

Unilever Fails to Block Sharp’s “Purefit” Trademark in Taiwan

On April 30, 2026, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) rejected a trademark opposition filed by Unilever Global IP Limited (“Unilever”), finding that the contested trademark “Purefit” would not cause confusion with Unilever’s “pureit by Unilever” (Reg. No. 02209729, hereafter “pureit”, see below)

The contested trademark, “Purefit” (Reg. No. 02331549, see below), was filed by Sharp Corporation (“Sharp”) on January 31,2023, and registered on November 1, 2023. The mark covered products in Class 11, including air purifier, air purification equipment, air filtration equipment, air conditioning equipment, dehumidifier, air deodorization device, air conditioning filter, etc. Unilever filed opposition on January 31, 2024, alleging that the registration of the contested trademark violated Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

In its decision on April 30, 2026, TIPO did not rule in Unilever’s favor. The reasons are as follows:

1.        On similarity, although the word “pureit” occupies significant portion of Unilever’s trademark, TIPO noted that the additional presence of stylized “by Unilever” and the water drop icon reduce the degree of similarity between the two trademarks. Given the overall visual and phonetical differences, TIPO opined the degree of similarity should be intermediate. 

2.        On the designated products, Unilever argued that its trademark covered similar household appliances such as water dispensers, water filtration and purification devices, drinking water filters, and water purification appliances. TIPO found these products technically and functionally different from the air filtration products designated by Sharp’s contested trademark. The latter focuses on removing the dust, bacteria, and particles to improve air quality, while the former focuses on purification, filtration, or cooling of water. Additionally, the sales channels, targeted customers, and manufacturers of the two products do not necessarily overlap. TIPO thus considered the designated products of Sharp’s trademark dissimilar to Unilever’s.

3.        Unilever alleged that “pureit” has become well-known, but TIPO found evidence submitted by Unilever, at best, proved that such trademark has been used in Taiwan. Without further evidence such as sales records, market shares, and products ranking, it is insufficient to show Unilever’s trademark has been well recognized by the relevant consumers. 

4.        On the strength and diversification of the trademark, TIPO found that before Unilever’s “pureit”, there were trademarks that also contained “pure” registered by others in the relevant product categories. Hence, ordinary consumers in Taiwan should be quite familiar with use of “pure” in conjunction with purification and filtration products. 

5.        Besides, Unilever submitted no records showing its expansion into air filtration and purification products. TIPO therefore posited that mere use of “pure” by Sharp is insufficient to prove its bad faith, and is less likely to cause confusion. 

In view of the above, given the insufficient evidence to prove the well-known status, the difference of product categories, the lack of actual confusion and bad faith, TIPO concluded that mere intermediate degree of similarity would not render Sharp’s “Purefit” confusingly similar to Unilever’s “pureit by Unilever”. Unilever’s opposition was denied accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOgB8kQrPvAy1ojfMrR%2BrRABzin6oUM

Polo/Lauren Secured Critical Win Against Parallel Importer on Appeal

 On May 14, 2026, Taiwan’s Intellectual Property and Commercial Court (“IPC Court”) handed the Polo/Lauren Company L.P. (“Polo/Lauren”) a key win on appeal, vacating the lower court’s determination on doctrine of exhaustion, and finding that Polo/Lauren’s famous trademarks (“Polo Ralph Lauren”, see below) were infringed by, Jie Sin Trading Co. Ltd. (Jie Sin Trading), the parallel importer of Polo/Lauren’s products.

1.        Background

This dispute, dated back to 2022, was derived from Jie Sin Trading’s importation and the way it resold Polo/Lauren’s products in Taiwan. According to Polo/Lauren, Jie Sin Trading, without proper license, illegally used Polo/Lauren’s aforesaid well-Known trademarks in reselling Ralph Lauren’s products at S-Outlet, a shopping mall managed and operated by another joint tortfeasor, ESSE Commerce Development Inc. (“ESSE”). Ralph Lauren sued Jie Sin Trading and ESSE based on violations of Trademark Act and Fair Trade Act before the IPC Court in 2022.

2.        IPC Court’s decision at the first instance level

In the first instance level, the IPC Court found that because the Polo/Lauren’s products resold by Jie Sin Trading at S-Outlet were genuine products, Polo/Lauren’s trademark rights were exhausted under Article 36 of Taiwan’s Trademark Act (111-Ming-Shang-Su-Zi No. 57). However, the IPC Court ruled that the way and style Jie Sin Trading used Ralph Lauren’s trademarks in its physical stores were deviant from common practice and misleading, so the court held Jie Sin Trading liable under Article 25 of Fair Trade Act (See: https://lnkd.in/gH85ktV4 ). Both Polo/Lauren and Jie Sin Trading appealed.

3.        IPC Court’s decision at the second instance level

On appeal, the IPC Court vacated its lower court’s finding, and determined that in addition to violating Fair Trade Act, Jie Sin Trading and ESSE also violated Polo/Lauren’s trademark rights. The IPC Court agreed that since the products resold by Jie Sin Trading at S-Outlet were genuine, they should be exempted from Polo/Lauren’s trademark rights under Article 36 of Trademark Act. However, the scope of exhaustion should be limited to the products themselves, not including Jie Sin Trading’s use of trademarks on the advertising materials, such as S-Outlet’s webpages, and the signage and other labels displayed in Jie Sin Trading’s physical stores. As Polo/Lauren correctly pointed out, when in the store or visiting the website, ordinary consumers could only see “Polo Ralph Lauren”. And even Jie Sin Trading’s name “JS’ Maxx” was presented somewhere in the store, it was less visible and clear (For example, see: https://www.s-outlet.com.tw/dm.php?i=82 and https://amy77.com/blog/post/s-outlet).

Jie Sin Trading argued that even if Polo/Lauren’s trademark rights were not exhausted, its use is merely indicative and should be fair use under Trademark Act. The IPC Court disagreed, finding that Jie Sin Trading’s use intentionally emphasized and highlighted the presence of Ralph Lauren’s trademarks on its webpages, signage, and billboard without identifying its company name, which is not aligned with fair trade and common practice. Indeed, in the entrance of the store and on its billboard, Jie Sin Trading’s company name was either not present or less visible. Under such circumstance, when entering the store or visiting the website, ordinary consumers would easily form the impression that Jie Sin Trading’s store is related to or affiliated with Polo/Lauren, which cause confusion with Polo/Lauren’s well-known trademarks.

While ESSE argued that it had no control over the way Jie Sin Trading used trademark, the IPC Court found these arguments unpersuasive. Because evidence showed that ESSE was at least in charge of the management of advertisements Jie Sin Trading used on S-Outlet’s webpage. To this end, the IPC Court found ESSE negligent in failing to regulate Jie Sin Trading’s use of “Polo Ralph Lauren” without identifying its company name in its proposed online advertising.

4. IPC Court’s conclusion on appeal

Based on the above reasons, in addition to the monetary and injunctive reliefs awarded by the lower court’s decision, the IPC Court further awarded Polo/Lauren NT$ 1.52 million against Jie Sin Trading and NT$ 2 million against ESSE based on trademark law violations respectively.

Source: 114-Ming-Shang-Shan-Zi No. 11 (IPC Court) https://judgment.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD/data.aspx?ty=JD&id=IPCV,114%2c%e6%b0%91%e5%95%86%e4%b8%8a%2c11%2c20260514%2c1

PUMA SE’s Trademark Opposition for its PUMA Icon Fell Short

On April 30, 2026, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) denied a trademark opposition initiated by PUMA SE, finding that the contested trademark was insufficiently similar to PUMA SE’s icons to cause confusion (Reg. No. 00087447, 00088125, 00088132, 00094620, 00131605, 00131624, 00766352, 01391153, 01604881, and 02018202, see below).

The contested trademark, “CARLYLE with Specialty Badge” (Reg. No. 02477074, see below), was filed by Genuine Parts Company (“Genuine Parts”) on July 30, 2024, and registered on August 16, 2025, covering goods in Class 6, 7, 20, and 25. On November 10, 2025, PUMA SE filed an opposition against the Class 25 goods, including clothing, hats, gloves, shirts, and jackets, alleging that the contested trademark is confusingly similar to its PUMA trademarks, and should be cancelled based on Articles 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

TIPO did not rule in PUMA SE’s favor. In its determination on April 30, 2026, TIPO found that:

1.        Based on the extensive records of trademark use, PUMA SE’s cited trademarks, especially the “Jumping PUMA” and “PUMA and Jumping puma device” trademarks, had been well-known in the field of sneakers and apparel. As for PUMA SE’s “D with Jumping Cat Device” trademark, given that there was no corresponding evidence supporting its use, such trademark was not recognized as famous.

2.        On similarity, since felines are commonly seen animals, the differences in posture, movement, shape, stripes, and artistic style may create distinct visual impressions. Genuine Parts’ contested trademark mainly depicted a walking cat facing right, while PUMA SE’s trademarks mainly featured a jumping puma facing left. There are noticeable differences in movement direction, posture, body stripes, and tail design. Moreover, the inclusion of the text element “CARLYLE” further distinguishes the contested trademark from PUMA SE’s marks. Overall, the degree of similarity is low. 

3.        While the product category of the contested trademark partially overlaps with those of PUMA SE’s, the contested trademark is inherently distinctive. Additionally, for Class 25 product, TIPO noted that there are numerous registered trademarks also combining feline images with textual elements. The mere use of cat image in the contested trademark is insufficient to cause confusion with PUMA SE’s trademarks. Besides, there was no evidence of actual confusion or dilution submitted by PUMA SE.

4.        In conclusion, although PUMA SE’s “Jumping PUMA” and “PUMA” trademarks are well-known and there is partial overlap between the registered product categories, TIPO determined that the low degree of similarity, combined with the absence of evidence of actual confusion or dilution, and the inherent distinctiveness of the contested trademark, rendered confusion unlikely. PUMA SE’s opposition was denied accordingly.

Source:  

https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOgB8kRpfsuZc%2B%2BcLusadQ1tqcR%2FKET