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

Taiwan IP Office Cancels "MING SING FLORIDA WATER" Trademark Over Intent to Imitate Historic US Brand

On June 29, 2026, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) cancelled the contested trademark “MING SING FLORIDA WATER”, finding such trademark was filed based on intent to imitate the earlier-used trademark “FLORIDA WATER”, a time-honored brand owned by LANMAN & KEMP-BARCLAY & CO. INCORPORATED (“LANMAN & KEMP”, see below).

The contested trademark, “MING SING FLORIDA WATER” (Reg. No. 02444264, see below), was filed by Sen Cheng Trading Co. Ltd. (“Sen Cheng”) on August 27, 2024, and registered on April 1, 2025. The mark covers a variety of deodorizers in Class 5. LANMAN & KEMP filed opposition on June 30, 2025, alleging that the registration of the contested trademark violated Articles 30.1.11 and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

TIPO ruled in LANMAN & KEMP’s favor based on Article 30.1.12, finding that:

1.        Article 30.1.12 of Trademark Act provides that a mark 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.

2.        In this case, TIPO noted that “FLORIDA WATER” was originated from New York back in 1808, and has been used as a trademark on a variety of deodorizing products since 1829 in the United States. Based on the records, including trademark registrations, webpages, news reports, and products sales, TIPO affirmed that prior to Sen Cheng’s filing of the contested trademark, LANMAN & KEMP’s “FLORIDA WATER” has already been used in products like cologne, and air fresheners.

3.        While the contested trademark consists of “MING SING” and “FLORIDA WATER”, TIPO opined that consumes would be more focused on the latter, which provides more concrete and definite meaning than “MING SING”. Accordingly, consumers may perceive Sen Cheng’s contested trademark as similar to LANMAN & KEMP’s “FLORIDA WATER”.

4.        TIPO also observed that the contested trademark covered products such as deodorizers for clothing, air purifiers, and toilet deodorants, which overlap with the product category covered by LANMAN & KEMP’s “FLORIDA WATER”.

5.        Furthermore, evidence shows that on its own website, Sen Cheng even touted that its deodorizer product is the first “FLORIDA WATER” in Asia. TIPO found this evidence, together with Sen Cheng’s subsequent filing of similar trademark, i.e., the contested “MING SING FLORIDA WATER”, were sufficient to show Sen Cheng’s intent to imitate LANMAN & KEMP’s “FLORIDA WATER”.

 

In view of the above, considering the long-time use of LANMAN & KEMP’s “FLORIDA WATER”, Sen Cheng’s prior knowledge of “FLORIDA WATER”, the similarity between the two marks, and the overlap of designated products, TIPO concluded that Sen Cheng’s application shall be based on intent to imitate. The registration of the contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

 

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOmAs8TrfsGi16hps2t6QJItjI9oLKx

Dior’s Trademark Opposition Against “妡Yuxi Adore及圖” Failed

In a recent trademark opposition filed by Dior against the registered trademark “妡Yuxi Adore及圖”, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) denied Dior’s request to cancel the contested trademark. TIPO determined that although the contested trademark contains the word “Adore”, it is sufficiently distinct from Dior’s famous “J’ADORE” (Reg. No. 00832697, see below) to prevent likelihood of confusion.

The contested trademark, “妡Yuxi Adore及圖” (Reg. No. 02483965, see below), was filed on March 31, 2025, and registered on October 1, 2025, covering Class 3 goods, including cosmetics, perfumes, lipsticks, soaps, essential oil, washing powder, skincare products, etc. Dior filed opposition on January 2, 2026, alleging that the registration of the contested trademark violated Articles 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

On June 26, 2026, TIPO ruled against Dior and denied its cancellation request based on the following:

1.        In general, trademark similarity could be analyzed based on visual appearance, pronunciation, and conceptual impression. In this case, the contested trademark consists of a lady’s side-profile silhouette, floral elements, the Chinese character “妡”, and the text “Yuxi Adore”. Ordinary consumers would perceive the graphic silhouette and the prominent Chinese character ”妡” as the dominant portion, which together occupy about 2/3 of the entire contested trademark. Since local consumers are more familiar with Chinese, their attention naturally focuses on the Chinese character and graphical elements rather than “Yuxi Adore”. Further, although both marks share the word “adore”, the differences in their initial letters create clear visual and phonetic distinctions. Hence, TIPO considered the similarity between the two trademarks is low.

2.        As to product similarity, TIPO noted that some products categories designated by the contested trademark overlapped with those covered by Dior’s trademark, such as cosmetics, fragrances, etc. However, the contested trademark also covered other dissimilar products, such as washing powders. Thus, the designated product category does not entirely overlap.

3.        TIPO affirmed that Dior’s trademark is highly distinctive and had been well-known in the fragrance sector prior to the filing of the contested trademark. Nonetheless, TIPO noted that the contested trademark also demonstrated sufficient distinctiveness, considering its unique design and lack of descriptive relationship with the Class 3 goods.

4.        Despite the well-known status of Dior’s “J’ADORE”, the low similarity between the marks and the distinctiveness of both allow consumers to distinguish between them. Additionally, the nature of the products designated by the contested trademark is neither harmful to the public interest nor prejudicial to the fame of Dior’s “J’ADORE”, the registration of the contested trademark is unlikely to dilute or damage Dior’s well-known trademark.

Based on the above, Dior’s request to cancel the registration of the contested trademark based on Articles 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act is denied accordingly.

 

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOmA8sUpPsDBe82Z1wWEH6hFrvmT4hp

Taiwan’s IP Office Cancelled “Dr. Grammy” over Confusion with “GRAMMY”

On June 26, 2026, National Academy of Recording Arts & Science Inc. (“NARAS”) successfully challenged the registrability of a trademark “Dr. Grammy”, convincing Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) that the contested trademark may cause confusion with its well-known “GRAMMY” trademark (Reg. No. 00111702, see below).

The contested trademark, “Dr. Grammy” (Reg. No. 02457010, see below), was filed by Meacron Cosmetics Laboratory Inc. (“Meacron”) on November 29, 2024, and registered on June 1, 2025, covering goods in class 3, including shampoos, hair conditioners, hair dyes, beauty care products, dish washing detergents, hair styling products, fragrances, essential oils, skin care cosmetics, etc. NARAS filed opposition on August 28, 2025, alleging that registration of the contested trademark violated Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

                                 

TIPO ruled in NARAS’s favor, reasoning that:

1.        Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act provides that a mark shall not be registers if such a mark is identical or similar to another’s well-known mark, and is likely to cause confusion among the relevant consumers, or harm the reputation or distinctiveness of such well-known mark.

2.        TIPO noted that “GRAMMY” has become well-known in the music award ceremony services, due to NARAS’s continuous and successful worldwide marketing and use since the inaugural GRAMMY AWARD ceremony in 1959. The event, commonly known and cited as the “GRAMMYs”, is widely recognized across the press, fashion, entertainment, and music industries. Further, NARAS has registered series of “GRAMMY” trademarks in Taiwan since as early as 1996. Coupled with its extensive advertising and marketing, TIPO affirmed that by the filing date of the contested trademark, “GRAMMY” has achieved well-known status.

3.        On similarity, although the contested trademark consists of “Dr.” and “Grammy”, TIPO observed that “Grammy” should be the dominant element. Both trademarks feature the same word, “grammy”, with minor differences in capitalization and font. Hence, Meacron’s “Dr. Grammy” is considered to be similar to NARAS’s “GRAMMY”.

4.        Further, NARAS’s “GRAMMY” is highly distinctive. Aside from the contested trademark, all other trademarks containing “GRAMMY” are registered and owned by NARAS. Prior court’s decision also confirmed that the general public in Taiwan has established strong and exclusive connection between the trademark “GRAMMY” and NARAS’s award ceremony. As such, TIPO considered “GRAMMY” should enjoy broad exclusivity.

5.        Although the contested trademark covered cosmetics, which are different and less related to the services represented by NARAS’s “GRAMMY”, TIPO determined that the registration of “Dr. Grammy” may dilute the uniqueness of the well-known “GRAMMY” trademark due to the high degree of similarity, and the well-known status of “GRAMMY”. Therefore, the contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

 

Source:  https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOmA8oTrPt1glQmSlEbASqvTNYNCKTX

POLO/Lauren Company L.P. Secured a Win in Opposition Against “NAPOLEON POLO” Trademark

On June 30, 2026, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) cancelled a contested trademark “NAPOLEON POLO & device”, finding such trademark may cause confusion with POLO/Lauren’s well-known “POLO” and “POLO Player symbol” trademarks (e.g., Reg. No. 00599583, No. 00069730, and No. 01737294, see below, hereafter together as “POLO” trademarks), even though the contested trademark was designated in other retail and wholesale services.

The contested trademark, “NAPOLEON POLO & device” (Reg. No. 02511681, see below), was filed on May 25, 2025, and registered on February 1, 2026. The mark covered services in Class 35, including retail and wholesale services for household goods, camping gears, maternity and infant products, and toys and stationery. POLO/Lauren filed opposition on May 4, 2026, 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, TIPO sided with POLO/Lauren, 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 harm the distinctiveness or reputation of such well-known trademark.

2.        Based on the supporting evidence prepared by POLO/Lauren, including its records of trademark registrations, use of trademarks, sales records, advertising materials, and prior court decisions, TIPO agreed take prior to the filing of the contested trademark, the alleged POLO trademarks are well-known in the fields of apparel and the relevant retail services.

3.        On similarity, TIPO noted that both marks contain the word POLO, and feature a horse rider holding a long object. Since the word polo itself also means a sport where players compete by riding horses and carrying wooden hammers, consumers would consider the word “POLO” and the image of horse-riding knight to be the dominant elements of the contested trademark. In this sense, the contested trademark is visually and conceptually similar to the well-known POLO trademarks.

4.        TIPO further noted that although polo refers to a sport, it is still distinctive when being used as trademark for clothing. Besides, considering the evidence of decades of trademark use, and the brand’s successful expansion into luggages, cosmetics, stationery, toys, books, footwear, and retail and distributorship services, TIPO affirmed that consumers should be more familiar with the “POLO” trademarks.

5.        Although the contested trademark covered various retail and wholesale services, TIPO considered such categories to be related to the services or products designated by the POLO trademarks, such as retail services for apparel and its stationery and toys products, which weigh in the favor of finding likelihood of confusion

Given the well-known status of the POLO trademarks, the similarity between the marks, the diversification of POLO’s products, and the relatedness between the services categories, TIPO determined that the registration of the contested trademark may cause confusion with the “POLO” trademarks. As a result, “NAPOLEON POLO & device” was cancelled accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOmAscRoftqRegBDG48zqMGa8UsWsag