Ford Came Out on Top in Trademark Opposition for Its Classic Pony Logo

On January 2, 2026, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) cancelled the trademark “Hipuller & device”, finding such trademark confusingly similar to Ford’s iconic pony logo (Reg. No. 02208164, see below).

The contested trademark, “Hipuller & device” (Reg. No. 02411234, see below), was filed by Kangfu International Hardware Co. Ltd. (“Kangfu”) on January 26, 2024, and granted on November 1, 2024. The contested trademark covered various tools in Class 8, including hand tools, wrenches, cutters, wire clamps, stripping tools, wire tensioners, etc. Ford filed opposition on January 23, 2025, alleging that the contested trademark violated Articles 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

On January 2, 2026, TIPO ruled in favor of Ford, 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 it is identical or similar to another’s well-known trademark, and is likely to cause confusion among the relevant consumers, or dilute the distinctiveness of the well-known trademark.

2.        Based on records submitted by Ford, including decades of use of pony logo in its Mustang series, news reports by local media (such as U-Car, CARTURE, BusinessNext, Yahoo, HIGHMOTOR, and GOChoice), and its strong distributorship in Taiwan market, TIPO found that prior to the filing date of the contested trademark, Ford’s pony logo was already well-known among the relevant consumers.

3.        On similarity, TIPO observed that although the contested trademark featured the word “Hipuller” above the design of a running horse, the horse design in both trademarks constituted the dominant portion, with highly similar contours, mane style, and running posture. As such, ordinary consumers would consider the contested trademark visually and conceptually similar to Ford’s pony logo.

4.        On the strength of the trademark, TIPO noted that the pony logo is not a commonly used symbol, and that it has been famous due to Ford’s extensive use in Taiwan. Given that Kangfu did not submit any evidence to support the actual use of the contested trademark, TIPO opined that the consumers would be more familiar with Ford’s pony logo.

5.        Moreover, hand tools, such as wrenches, may be used in automobile maintenance and repair. Consumers therefore may consider the designated products of the contested trademark as related to Ford’s automotive products.

In light of the well-known status of Ford’s pony logo, the similarity between the two trademarks, the strong brand recognition among the relevant consumers, and the relatedness between the designated products, TIPO concluded that the the contested trademark may create confusion with Ford’s famous pony logo. The registration of the contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.  

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOiAc4SrPviu58MT1xadF8iUsNrxGt1

Chanel Prevailed in Trademark Opposition Against “可萊媚LALLURE”

On December 31, 2025, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) ruled in favor of Chanel, cancelling “可萊媚LALLURE” on the ground that it was likely to cause confusion with the fashion brand’s famous “ALLURE” trademarks (Reg. No. 00625777 and 00846557, see below).

The contested trademark, “可萊媚LALLURE” (Reg. No. 02381231, see below), was filed by Liberty Stationery Corp. (“Liberty”) on September 4, 2023, and granted June 16, 2024. The contested trademark was designated for use in products in Class 3, including toner, lotion, makeup products, eyeshadow, shampoo, skin care cosmetics, skin care products, eyeliner, etc. Chanel filed opposition September 16, 2024, alleging violation of Articles 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

TIPO sided with Chanel on December 31, 2025, finding that the registration of the contested trademark violated 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 mark, designated for use in identical or similar goods or services, and hence there exists likelihood of confusion among the relevant consumers.

2.        On similarity, TIPO noted that while the contested trademark included Chinese characters “可萊媚” and a tree-leaf design, the eye-catching and stylized English elements “L’ALLURE” and “lallure” constituted one of its dominant features. When compared with Chanel’s cited trademarks “ALLURE”, ordinary consumers would perceive “L’ALLURE/lallure” as visually and conceptually similar to Chanel’s cited trademarks.  

3.        TIPO further observed that both Liberty’s contested trademark and Chanel’s cited trademarks covered cosmetics, personal hygiene, and beauty products. As such, the product category of Liberty’s contested trademark overlapped with those of Chanel’s “ALLURE” trademarks.

4.        Based on the supporting evidence, including Chanel’s official websites, media coverage, and TIPO’s prior determinations, Chanel’s “ALLURE” had built a strong brand reputation among the relevant consumers. By contrast, there was no evidence submitted by Liberty to support the use of the contested trademark. Hence, consumers should be more familiar with Chanel’s cited trademarks.

5.        In view of the similarity between the two trademarks, the overlap of designated product category, and the strong brand recognition among the relevant consumers, TIPO concluded that the registration of the contested trademark would create consumer confusion. The contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOrAMYXp%2FsIS9cJX4o54ukuHaExlial

Taiwan’s IP Office Sided with Mercedes-Benz in its Trademark Opposition Against Kurabe’s Logo

In a trademark opposition initiated by Mercedes-Benz (“Benz”), Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) ruled in favor of the German automotive giant, finding the contested trademark confusingly similar to Benz’s iconic three-pointed star logos (Reg. No. 01535350 and 01766128, see below).

The contested trademark (Reg. no. 02327415, see below) was filed by a Japanese company Kurabe Industrial Co. Ltd. (“Kurabe”) on December 19, 2022, and granted on October 1, 2023. Such trademark was designated for use in products in Class 9 (e.g., automotive electronic wiring, electrical conductors, copper wires, cables, PCBs, etc.), Class 11 (e.g., lighting devices for vehicles, lighting fixtures, vehicle ventilation systems, vehicle heaters, etc.), and Class 17 (e.g., insulators, cable insulators, insulating materials, etc.). Benz filed an opposition on December 28, 2023, alleging violations of Articles 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

On December 31, 2025, TIPO ruled in Benz’s favor based on Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act, 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, and is used in identical or similar products or services, thereby creating a likelihood of confusion among the relevant consumers.

2.        On similarity, the contested trademark consisted of three lightning-like elements extending upward, down-right, and down-left from the center, surrounded by two rings. TIPO noted that Benz’s logos similarly featured a star design extending in the same directions from the center and enclosed by a ring. Hence, Kurabe’s trademark was found to be visually similar to Benz’s trademarks.

3.        As to the designated products, TIPO observed that both Benz’s and Kurabe’s trademarks covered cables, wires, lighting devices, insulators, and the related accessories, which serve similar functions or purposes. Therefore, the designated products were considered similar. 

4.        Based on the sales records, news reports, and Benz’s official webpages, TIPO found that Benz’s cited trademarks had been well-known in the automotive field and related product market. By contrast, Kurabe’s evidence was insufficient to demonstrate product sales or extensive trademark use in Taiwan. TIPO was unable to determine if Kurabe’s trademark was also known to the relevant consumers. 

5.        Considering the similarity between the trademarks, the relatedness of product categories, and the strong brand recognition established by Benz, TIPO concluded that the registration of the contested trademark would likely cause confusion. Hence, Kurabe’s trademark was cancelled accordingly.

 

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOrA84drPvQUeCzDhBEO25bOqgslLS%2F

Tommy Hilfiger Prevails in Trademark Opposition Against “HbyFIGER”

 Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) ruled in the favor of Tommy Hilfiger Licensing B.V. (“Tommy Hilfiger”) in a trademark opposition proceeding, finding that the contested trademark “HbyFIGER” would likely cause confusion with Tommy Hilfiger’s iconic “TOMMY HILFIGER” trademarks (Reg. No. 00373193, 00770608, 00478393, 00478632, and 00770686, see below).

The contested trademark, “HbyFIGER” (Reg. No. 02357847, see below), was filed on July 28, 2023, and granted on February 16, 2024. The trademark covered products in Class 25, including sports shirts, clothing, kimonos, raincoats, shoes, ties, socks, shoes, scarves, etc. Tommy Hilfiger filed opposition on May 16, 2024, alleging violations of Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act. 

On November 27, 2025, TIPO ruled in the favor of Tommy Hilfiger, finding the contested trademark shall be cancelled based on 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 other’s registered trademark, and designated for use on identical or similar goods or services, thereby being likely to create confusion among the relevant consumers.

2.        On similarity, while the “TOMMY HILFIGER” trademark may also contain additional red, white, and blue design elements, TIPO noted that consumers would perceive “TOMMY HILFIGER” the dominant portion of the cited trademarks. Given that the “HILFIGER” in the cited trademarks and “HbyFIGER” both share the same beginning and ending letters, TIPO considered the contested trademark to be visually and phonetically similar to Tommy Hilfiger’s cited trademarks. The degree of similarity is intermediate.

3.        On the designated use of products, both trademarks covered similar product categories, such as clothing, shoes, and other accessories. TIPO therefore opined that the designated products overlap. 

4.        Based on extensive evidence submitted by Tommy Hilfiger, including the media coverages, news reports, and the operation of physical stores in Taipei 101, Breeze Center, Sogo, and Shin Kong Mitsukoshi, TIPO recognized that the cited “TOMMY HILFIGER” trademarks have established strong brand recognition in Taiwan. Hence, consumers shall be more familiar with the cited trademarks. 

5.        In view of the similarity between the two trademarks, the overlap of the designated products, and the distinctiveness and strong brand recognition of “TOMMY HILFIGER”, TIPO concluded that the registration of the contested trademark may cause confusion with the cited trademarks. The contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

 

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOqAscXrPs2imjJzcYrNjzPI454aONy

Chanel Prevails in Trademark Opposition Against “ECOCO”

In a trademark opposition initiated by Chanel, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) ruled in the favor of the fashion brand, cancelling the contested trademark for likelihood of confusion with Chanel’s well-known “COCO” trademarks (Reg. No. 00102776, 00438289, 01781763, 00624792, 00670814, and 00859991, see below).

The contested trademark, “ECOCO” (Reg. No. 02402941, see below), was filed on January 25, 2024 by Peng Mei International Co. Ltd. (“Peng Mei”), and granted on September 16, 2024. “ECOCO” was designated for use in services in Class 35, including advertising, SEO, marketing consulting, retail and wholesale of cosmetics, retail and wholesale of apparel and accessories, retail and wholesale of beauty tools, online shopping, etc. Chanel filed an opposition on December 16, 2024, alleging violation of Articles 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act. 

On November 25, 2025, TIPO ruled in favor of Chanel based on Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act, finding that:

1.        Chanel’s “COCO” trademarks have been well-known in Taiwan, supported by extensive and continuous evidence of trademark use, including advertisements in various magazines and news media, marketing events, exhibitions, and TIPO’s prior determinations. TIPO concluded that prior to the filing date of “ECOCO” trademark, Chanel’s “COCO” trademarks had already become famous in product categories such as perfumes, cosmetics, clothing, etc.

2.        Both “ECOCO” and “COCO” consisted of the letters of “COCO”, with a minor difference in the addition of the initial letter “E” in the contested trademark. From the perspective of ordinary consumers, “ECOCO” is verbally and visually similar to “COCO”.

3.        Even though “COCO” is a word with ordinary meaning, through Chanel’s long-standing and extensive use and marketing, the mark has acquired strong brand recognition among the relevant consumers. Taiwan’s consumers should be more familiar with Chanel’s “COCO”.

4.        While the contested trademark was not designated for cosmetics products, but rather for online shopping, advertising, marketing, and retails for cosmetics and beauty products, TIPO noted that these services are closely related to the sales and promotions of cosmetics, or are commonly used by ordinary consumers to search for or purchase such products. Hence, TIPO considered Peng Mei’s designated services to be related to Chanel’s designated perfumes, cosmetics, and apparel products. 

5.        In view of the well-known status and distinctiveness of “COCO”, the similarity between “ECOCO” and “COCO”, the strong brand recognition established by Chanel, and the relatedness between Peng Mei’s designated services and Chanel’s product categories, TIPO concluded that the registration of “ECOCO” would likely create confusion with Chanel’s “COCO” trademarks. Peng Mei’s “ECOCO” trademark was cancelled accordingly.

 

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOqA8cSrPtx7fxgaWBVEmoT2VUzKJ3T

Taiwan’s IP Office Cancelled A Trademark That Is Confusingly Similar To Adidas’ Iconic Trefoil Logos

 In a trademark opposition initiated by Adidas AG (“Adidas”), Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) sided with the sports brand, cancelling the contested trademark after finding it confusingly similar to Adidas’ iconic trefoil logos (Reg. No. 00167065, 00360933, and 01300822, see below).

The contested trademark (Reg. No. 02442098, see below) was filed on August 23, 2024, and granted on March 16, 2025, which covered products in Class 25, including clothes, pants, casual wear, sportswear, skirts, shoes, socks, gloves, hats, scarfs, etc. Adidas filed opposition on May 16, 2025, alleging violation of Articles 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

On November 26, 2025, TIPO ruled in the favor of Adidas based on Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act:

1.        On similarity, TIPO noted that both the contested trademark and Adidas’ cited trademarks featured three-leaf logo crossed by three white lines, with only minor differences in shapes of the leaves. Ordinary consumers would still find them conceptually and visually similar to each others.

2.        On the designated products, both Adidas’ trademarks and the contested trademark covered apparel and related accessories, such as sportswear, socks, shoes, etc. As such, TIPO found there was similarity between the designated products. 

3.        While the contested trademark demonstrated certain degree of distinctiveness, TIPO noted that Adidas’ trefoil logos have achieved strong recognition among the relevant consumers via extensive use in various product lines and marketing campaigns. For example, the “Clot” sneaker collaboration in 2023, the Disney Duck apparel and footwear collaboration in 2024, and the continuous marketing on media platforms such as GQ, ELLE, YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook. Hence, consumers are more familiar with Adidas’ trademarks.

4.        In view of the above, considering the similarity between the trademarks, the overlap of product category, and Adidas’ strong brand image among the relevant consumers, TIPO concluded that the registration of the contested trademark would likely create confusion with Adidas’ famous logos. The contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

Source: 

https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOqAsoQoPsZBqUdOPmSRCc6DJP3AlR1

Taiwan Court Found Patent Not Novel For Being Publicly Sold on Shopee Before the Filing Date

In a patent infringement lawsuit involving between the patentee, Focus On Your Car Ltd. (“Focus”), and the defendant, Mr. Pin-Hao Lin (“Lin”), the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court (“IPC Court”) found Focus’ design patent, D234007 (‘007 patent), not patentable for not being novel under Article 122 of Patent Law. (Case No.: 114-Ming-Zhuan-Su-Zi No. 19)

The ‘007 patent, titled “Clip-on Bracket”, is directed to the design of a clip-on frame that could be embedded in the interior of a car for placing the mobile phone. The parties did not dispute that the product supplied by Lin fell into the patented scope. However, Lin argued that all the features of ’007 patent, including the twisted and curved corner, trapezoidal projection, thin shell, and fan-shaped bottom, have all been disclosed in product publicly sold on Shopee. The IPC Court agreed (see below).

 Per Article 122 of Patent Act, a design which is industrially applicable may be granted a design patent upon application in accordance with this Act, provided any of the following does not exist: 1. an identical or similar design was disclosed in a printed publication prior to the filing of the patent application; 2. an identical or similar design was publicly exploited prior to the filing of the patent application; or 3. the design was known to the public prior to the filing of the patent application.

The ‘007 patent was filed on March 1, 2024. Based on the sales records, purchase order, and notarized webpages from Shopee, the IPC Court found that the product embodying the ‘007 patent, at the very least, has been publicly accessible on February 16, 2024. Hence, the IPC Court ruled that the ‘007 patent shall be unpatentable for lacking novelty.

Source: https://judgment.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD/data.aspx?ty=JD&id=IPCV,114%2c%e6%b0%91%e5%b0%88%e8%a8%b4%2c19%2c20251217%2c2