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 

Italian Brand “RELIFE” Wins Trademark Opposition Against “RENLIFE”

On May 29, 2026, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) cancelled a trademark “RENLIFE & device”, finding such trademark confusingly similar to the trademarks held by Italian cosmetic and beauty brand RELIFE S.R.L. (Reg. No. 01882282, 01882296, 02006661, 02037458, and 02037459, see below).

The contested trademark, “RENLIFE & device” (Reg. No. 02327480, see below), was filed by Renlife International Co. Ltd. on January 7, 2023, and registered on October 1, 2023. The contested trademark covered goods in Class 3 (e.g., lotion, cosmetics, skin care products, shampoo, soap, shower gel, essential oil, etc.), Class 5 (e.g., herbal medicine, diet pills, Chinese medicine, herbal tea, ointment, health care patch, nutritional supplement, etc.), Class 30, and Class 32; and services in Class 35 and Class 44. RELIFE S.R.L. filed opposition on December 29, 2023 against the registration for products in Class 3 and Class 5, alleging that the contested trademark violated Article 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

In its determination made on May 29, 2026, TIPO ruled in the favor of RELIFE S.R.L. under Article 30.1.10, finding the contested trademark would cause consumers’ confusion:

1.        TIPO observed that the contested trademark mainly consists of a “R” letter with green leaf design, and the word “Renlife”, while RELIFE S.R.L.’s trademarks mainly consist of a larger word “RELIFE”, and smaller word such as “MENARINI”, “MENARINI group”, “Relizema”, “PapiX”, and “NailX”. The dominant elements, therefore, should be “Renlife” and “RELIFE”. Given that “Renlife” and “RELIFE” both share the same initial letters and end with the letter “life”, the difference of “n” in the contested trademark is quite minor. TIPO thus found the contested trademark visually and orally similar to RELIFE S.R.L.’s cited trademarks.

2.        As to the designated products, TIPO noted that RELIFE S.R.L.’s trademarks also covered similar product categories, including soap, cosmetics, skin cleanser, sunscreen, medicine, skin agents, dermatitis drugs, dry skin treatment, medical oils, medicated tape, etc. Thus, the designated products of the contested trademark overlap with those covered by RELIFE S.R.L.’s trademarks. 

3.        TIPO further found RELIFE S.R.L.’s trademarks to be distinctive, and have been well recognized by the relevant consumers in Taiwan. Renlife International Co. Ltd. argued that it in fact only concentrates on Chinese medicine and traditional nutrition supplements, which are different from products of RELIFE S.R.L. TIPO disagreed, and explained that similarity of product should be determined based on items designated in the trademark registration, not on the products actually sold or manufactured by the trademark applicant.

4.        In view of the above, given the similarity between the trademarks, the overlap of product categories, and the brand reputation of RELIFE S.R.L.’s trademarks, TIPO considered the registration of the contested trademark may cause consumer confusion. “RENLIFE & device” was cancelled accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOhBcgcpfus7Je0bU2rK%2Bz9JAIDFNhN

Sloths in the trademark dispute: TIPO Dismisses "NAP TEA" Trademark Opposition Against “ Nonbiri Coffee Shop & Device”

 On May 21, 2026, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) dismissed a trademark opposition filed by Laying Down and Drinking Co., Ltd. against the trademark "Nonbiri Coffee Shop & Device," determining that there is no likelihood of confusion with the opposer's "NAP TEA", a sloth-themed trademarks (Reg. No. 02087358, see below).

The contested trademark, “Nonbiri Coffee Shop & Device” (Reg. No. 02403592, see below), was filed on October 12, 2023, and registered on September 16, 2024, covering services in Class 43, specifically hot and cold beverage shops, coffee shops, cafés, restaurants offering delivery services, restaurants offering takeout services, food and beverage services, catering services, and multi-concept restaurants. An opposition was filed on November 27, 2024, citing violations of Articles 30, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 10 of Taiwan’s Trademark Act.

On May 21, 2026, TIPO denied the opposition, reasoning that:

1.       Although both parties use a sloth as their design theme, their visual structures, postures, and specific features differ significantly. Further, the distinct textual elements, i.e., "Nonbiri Coffee Shop" in the contested mark, are dissimilar to the "NAP TEA" in the opposer's mark, which allows consumers to easily distinguish between them.

2.       On similarity of service, both marks target the same beverage and catering service markets, which generally increases the risk of consumer confusion if marks are similar.

3.       Evidence shows the opposer's marks have gained considerable reputation in the beverage shop market through extensive media coverage and store expansion. However, trademark search results show numerous prior registrations incorporating sloth designs for identical or similar catering services. Therefore, from consumer’s perspective, a generic sloth graphic possesses weak distinctiveness and does not connect exclusively to a single source.

4.       While the services are highly similar, the distinct visual designs and low similarity between the trademarks, combined with the low inherent distinctiveness of sloth graphics in the designated service sector, lead to the conclusion that ordinary consumers are unlikely to misidentify the services as originating from the same or an affiliated source.

In view of the above, TIPO concluded that the registration of the contested trademark does not violate Article 30, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 10 of the Trademark Act, and therefore denied the opposition against the contested trademark.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOhAMYTo%2FvG028w4nDXOMiWYr3AMGBU