Monster Energy’s Opposition To Cancel “MPOWER魔量及圖” Fell Short

On September 29, 2026, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) denied a trademark opposition filed by the classic beverage brand Monster Energy Company (“MEC”), finding the contested trademark “MPOWER魔量及圖” not confusingly similar to MEC’s “M claw” and “魔爪” icons (e.g., Reg. No. 02050772, 01497952, 02051894, and 02002179, see below).

The contested trademark, “MPOWER魔量及圖” (Reg. No. 02382916, see below, hereafter “MPOWER”), was filed on November 21, 2023, and registered on June 16, 2024. MPOWER covered various drinks in Class 32, including beers, non-alcoholic beverages, juices, energy drinks, soft drinks, etc. MEC filed opposition on September 13, 2024, alleging that registration of MPOWER violated Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

TIPO did not rule in the favor of MEC based on the following:

1. On similarity, TIPO considered the contested trademark dissimilar to MEC’s M claw design or “魔爪”. In its entirety, TIPO noted that the MPOWER mark consists of a symbolic mask, together with stylized English letters “MPOWER” and Chinese characters “魔量”. On the other hand, MEC’s trademarks either featured a monster’s or devil’s claw, or the Chinese characters “魔爪”/”魔爪能量”, which were visually distinct from the contested trademark. While MEC argued that “魔量” implied “energy of devil” or “energy of the devil claw”, and may render ordinary consumers perceive of MEC’s “魔爪” or ”魔爪能量”, TIPO found MEC did not submit evidence to back such argument in this regard. Hence, TIPO considered MEC’s arguments unpersuasive, and determined that the two trademarks were dissimilar to each other.

2. MEC argued that its trademarks were well-known before the filing date of the contested trademark, but TIPO disagreed. Upon reviewing the evidence submitted by MEC, TIPO found the records were either made in foreign languages or for MEC’s sponsorship of sports events, which were insufficient to show MEC’s trademarks and its branded energy drinks had been widely recognized or accessed by consumers in Taiwan before the filing date of the contested trademark. Although MEC’s sales records proved that there were actual sales in Taiwan since 2017, such records still failed to show MEC’s market share and brand recognition. Hence, TIPO did not consider MEC’s cited trademarks had achieved well-known status before the filing date of the contested trademark.

3. On the designated products, TIPO agreed that both the contested trademark and MEC’s cited trademarks cover similar beverages and drinks. However, TIPO noted that there was no evidence of actual confusion among the consumers, or bad faith on the part of the registrant of MPOWER. 

4. Given that the two trademarks were dissimilar, and that the evidence was insufficient to prove the well-known status of MEC’s trademarks, TIPO concluded that MEC’s opposition against MPOWER should be denied. Mere presence of Chinese character “魔”, and the overlap of product category were insufficient to show consumers would confuse MPOWER with MEC’s trademarks, or MPOWER was registered with the intent to imitate MEC’s well-known trademarks.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOkBsYUpfvjzwI3YR1in12NcpdEq%2F7Q

Japanese Apparel Brand “Human Made” Prevailed in IPC Court Against “Human Power”

On September 30, 2026, Taiwan’s IP and Commercial Court (“IPC Court”) entered a judgment in the favor of Human Made Inc. (“HMI”), upholding the determination of Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) that the contested trademark “Human Power” should be cancelled due to likelihood of confusion with HMI’s “Human Made” trademark (Reg. No. 02277469, see below, hereafter “Human Made”).

The contested trademark, “Human Power & device (color)” (Reg. No. 02347258, see below, hereafter “Human Power”), was filed by Ting Heng Enterprise Co. Ltd. (“TH”) on May 31, 2023, and registered on January 1, 2024. The mark covered goods in Class 9, including portable power chargers, mobile phone chargers, electric wires, computer hardware, software, wireless charger, etc. HMI filed opposition on January 26, 2024, alleging that registration of “Human Power” violated Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

TIPO ruled in the favor of HMI on August 21, 2025, finding the contested trademark to be confusingly similar to HMI’s “Human Made”, and should be cancelled under Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act. After its subsequent appeal was denied by the Petitions and Appeals Committee of the MOEA (“Committee”), TH filed an administrative lawsuit before the IPC Court, seeking to vacate both TIPO’s and Committee’s unfavorable decisions.

The IPC Court did not side with TH, reasoning that:

1.      The overall appearance and design of “Human Made” and “Human Power” is similar to each other. Both feature a heart icon with English letter “Human” embedded inside. The differences between other letters, i.e., “Power” v.s. “Made”, and the decorative designs on the upper right of the heart logo, should be minor and insufficient to make the contested trademark distinct from HMI’s “Human Made” trademark.

2.      HMI’s “Human Made” trademark also covered electric appliances in Class 9, such as cameras, projectors, PDA, smartphones, video game consoles, etc. Such product categories are related to the accessories registered by TH’s “Human Power”, which are complementary to the use or function of products designated by HMI’s trademark.

3.      Additionally, HMI’s trademark is distinctive, so that consumers would easily consider such logo an identifier of source of goods or services. Given the similarity between the two trademarks, the overlap of the registered product categories, and the distinctiveness of HMI’s “Human Made” trademark, TIPO and the Committee did not err in finding likelihood of confusion.

4.      TH argued that “Human” and heart logo were common elements for trademark registered in Class 9, which should carry little weight in the assessment of similarity. However, upon examination, the IPC Court found those trademarks identified by TH were different from TH’s “Human Power”. Hence, the IPC Court found TH’s arguments unpersuasive.

5.      TH further contended that the nature of the registered products was different. There is no common manufacturer, supplier, or sales channel between the two categories. To the contrary, the IPC Court found products such as battery, chargers, electric wire and software are related accessories or consumables for products like PDA, smartphone, and cameras. Consumers would view them relevant or complementary to their use of products covered by HMI’s trademark.

In view of the above, the IPC Court upheld TIPO’s and Committee’s decisions, and dismissed TH’s complaint accordingly.

Source: https://judgment.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD/data.aspx?ty=JD&id=IPCA,115%2c%e8%a1%8c%e5%95%86%e8%a8%b4%2c16%2c20260930%2c2 (115-Shin-Shang-Su-Zi No. 16, IPC Court)

Apple Prevailed in Counterclaim Against Tuton In Patent Showdown Before Taiwan’s IP & Commercial Court

On September 30, 2026, Taiwan’s IP and Commercial Court (“IPC Court”) ruled in the favor of Apple Asia LLC (“Apple Asia”), granting injunction against Tuton Technology Co. Ltd. (“Tuton”), enjoining Tuton from asserting four of its patents against Apple Asia’s downstream customers and distribution channel, and awarding defense costs and patent invalidation expenses Apple Asia incurred.

 

The disputes between the parties arose from Tuton’s patent infringement lawsuit against Apple Asia, alleging infringement of 10 USB Type-C related patents. In defense, Apple Asia identified that four core asserted patents, i.e, Utility Models M498984 (Patent No. 4), M493699 (Patent No. 7), M514666 (Patent No. 9), and Invention Patent I544339 (Patent No. 6) (collectively, the 'Four Patents'), had expired or were previously declared invalid in another parallel civil infringement litigation against Micro-Star International (MSI) (IPC Court Case No. 110-Min-Zhuan-Su-45).

 

To counter Tuton’s patent enforcement, Apple Asia filed a counterclaim asserting that Tuton engaged in bad-faith patent assertion and unlawful commercial harassment. Apple Asia requested the IPC Court to permanently enjoin Tuton from asserting these flawed patents against Apple Asia and its downstream distribution channel, and sought tort damages under the Fair Trade Act and Civil Code to recover attorney fees, legal defense costs, and patent invalidation expenses.

The IPC Court conducted an in-depth patentability assessment and ruled that Claim 1 of each of the Four Patents lacked novelty or was obvious (lacked inventive step) over prior art references:

1.     Patent No.4 (M498984):  The IPC Court found Claim 1 was related to a modular connector arrangement, which was merely a routine combination of existing connector packaging with the standardized USB Type-C layout.

2.     Patent No.6 (I544339): The IPC Court found Claim 1 not patentable in view of the Cypress CY4504 board integrating Type-C plug, CCG1 chip, and host interface. Claim 1 was also obvious by substituting legacy USB and bridge chips with Type-C and CC logic chips without unexpected results.

3.     Patent No.7 (M493699): The IPC Court found Claim 1 obvious. A person of ordinary skills in the art could easily accomplish the patented features by modifying a multi-port motherboard and protocol conversion adapter to adopt USB Type-C female receptacles, and transmitting Type-C compliant signals was routine engineering.

4.     Patent No.9 (M514666): The IPC Court found the claimed symmetrical pin layout and terminal configuration were directly, identically, and fully anticipated by the publicly released USB Type-C industry standard.

The IPC Court then noted that the Four Patents had not been finally invalidated because the ruling of Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) were still pending Tuton’s administrative appeals, and that the MSI civil judgment had only relative inter partes effect. Thus, asserting patents found invalid in a separate civil lawsuit is not per se unlawful.

 

However, the IPC Court determined that Tuton violated Article 116 of Patent Act and Article 25 of Fair Trade Act:

1.     Under Article 116 of Taiwan's Patent Act, a utility model patentee must present a Utility Model Patent Technical Assessment Report before issuing warning letters. Tuton failed to attach technical reports for M498984, M493699, and M514666. It impermissibly attempted to substitute them with private infringement analysis reports. Tuton even affirmatively misrepresented in its warning letters to Apple Asia that it had already applied for and obtained technical reports from TIPO.

2.     Under the Fair Trade Commission's (FTC) Warning Letter Guidelines, a patentee must first notify the source, i.e., the manufacturer or supplier (here, Apple Inc. in the US), to cease infringement before warning downstream distributors or customers. Apple Asia was merely a domestic distributor. Tuton bypassed the manufacturer and sent warning letters directly to Apple Asia demanding royalties, constituting unfair conduct affecting trading order in violation of Article 25 of Fair Trade Act.

3.     Accordingly, the IPC Court granted Apple Asia’s counterclaim, granting a permanent injunction barring Tuton from asserting Claim 1 of the Four Patents, no matter directly or through third parties, by issuing warning letters or disseminating infringement allegations to Apple Asia, its distributors, agents, and existing or potential commercial counterparties.

4.     For damages, the IPC Court clarified that attorney fees for first-instance civil patent litigation are governed strictly as procedural court costs under Article 15 of the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act (subject to statutory limits upon final judgment), and hence cannot be counted as substantive tort damages. 

5.     The IPC Court recognized that Apple Asia's expenses incurred in reviewing Tuton’s defective warning letters, drafting responses, and petitioning TIPO for patent invalidations to halt Tuton's serial litigation were necessary defensive expenditures directly caused by Tuton's aforesaid unfair and unlawful conducts. Based on the discretion under Article 222(2) of Code of Civil Procedure, the IPC Court awarded Apple Asia NT$ 600,000 in compensatory damages plus 5% statutory interest.

Source: https://judgment.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD/data.aspx?ty=JD&id=IPCV,113%2c%e6%b0%91%e5%b0%88%e8%a8%b4%2c64%2c20260930%2c3 (Taiwan Intellectual Property & Commercial Court Civil Judgment (113-Min-Zhuan-Su-Zi No. 64, September 30, 2026)

Taiwan’s IP Office Cancelled “劳迪士” Over Likelihood of Confusion with Rolex’s iconic “勞力士”

On September 21, 2026, in an trademark opposition initiated by Rolex SA (“Rolex”), Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) ruled in the favor of Swiss luxury watchmaker, cancelling the contested trademark “劳迪士” upon finding likelihood of confusion with Rolex’s iconic “勞力士” trademark in Taiwan (Reg. No. 00162779, see below).

The contested trademark, “劳迪士” (Reg. No. 02446047, see below), was filed on September 9, 2024, and registered on April 1, 2025. The mark was designated for use in Class 35 services, including advertising, marketing, market research, recruitment, product display for retails, etc. Rolex filed opposition on June 26, 2025, alleging that registration of the contested trademark violated Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

TIPO sided with Rolex based on Article 30.1.10 of Trademark:

1.      TIPO firstly affirmed that Rolex’s “勞力士” (i.e., the Chinese transliteration of “Rolex”) has established strong brand recognition in Taiwan. According to the voluminous records submitted by Rolex, including its worldwide trademark registrations, product sales, marketing materials , news reports (e.g., on BAZAAR, VOGUE, ELLE, ET FASHION, etc.), and TIPO’s prior determinations, “勞力士” has been a strong brand among ordinary consumers in Taiwan.

2.      TIPO further noted that “劳迪士” and “勞力士” are quite similar to each other. Both share the same initial letter “劳/勞” and end with the same letter “士”. The pronunciation of “迪” (“[di]”) also resembles that of “力” (“[li]”), making the contested trademark “劳迪士” ([lao-di-shi]) visually and phonetically similar to Rolex’s “勞力士” ([lao-li-shi]).

3.      Meanwhile, TIPO found Rolex’s “勞力士” covered similar services in areas such as marketing, advertisement design, art design for advertisement, and market research. In other words, the designated services of the two trademarks overlap with each other.

4.      In view of the above, given the similarity of the trademarks, the strong brand recognition of “勞力士” in Taiwan, and the overlap of designated services in Class 35, TIPO concluded that the registration of “劳迪士” would cause confusion with Rolex’s “勞力士”. The contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOkB8wQrPsuYpF5DDfMLhgg2Oew1Qrs

The IPC Court Awarded Damages Based on Reasonable Royalty Rate After Finding Infringement of Design Patent

On July 27, 2026, Taiwan’s IP and Commercial Court (“IPC Court”) ruled in the favor of Crown MFG Corp. (“Crown”), finding that Chia Li Chia Co. Ltd. and Wu Yen Co. Ltd. (Collectively as “Defendants”) should be jointly liable for infringing TW design patent D150543 (“‘543 patent”), and awarded NT$ 500,000 as compensatory damages. (Case No. 115-Min-Zhuan-Su-Zi No.19)

The asserted ‘543 patent, titled “Beverage Container”, is co-owned by Crown and Thermos, and claimed a priority date of August 30, 2011. Crown alleged that Defendants’ thermos bottle products infringed the ‘543 patent. The Defendants did not dispute that the accused products fell into the patented scope, but contended that the ‘543 patent should be invalid over the prior arts.

The IPC Court found the ‘543 patent valid over the alleged prior art references. More specifically:

1. The ‘543 patent comprises a cylindrical main body and a cap assembly. Notable aesthetic features include: (1) a distinct outward protruding annular flange near the bottom edge (i.e., “底座外凸緣”); (2) an inward constriction near the upper outer periphery where the cap bottom edge and bottle top edge jointly taper to form an integrated constricted neck profile (i.e., “瓶蓋與瓶身共同形成內縮頸部”); and (3) a cap assembly secured by a clasp composed of multiple stacked semicircular ring bodies paired with a distinctive figure-8 shaped push button (i.e., “半圓形環體扣合部與8字形按鈕”) (see below).

2. Under this interpretation, the IPC Court found none of the prior art references, including US D596,460, US D455,611, and JP D369,082, disclose the above features. The shapes of the cap and the bottle, the structure of the bottom of the bottle, and shape of the clasp were all substantially different from the ‘543 patent (See below).

3. To the contrary, the IPC Court found the accused product embodies all the identified ‘543 features (See below). Both are beverage container / vacuum insulated bottle products. The infringing product also features an outward protruding annular flange adjacent to the bottom edge, a clasp constructed of stacked semicircular ring bodies paired with a distinctive figure-8 shaped push button, and neck constriction structure, where the bottom peripheral edge of the cap and the top peripheral edge of the bottle body jointly taper inward to create an integrated constricted neck profile. Thus, the IPC Court held that under overall observation, the accused product produces a confusingly similar visual impression to the ordinary consumer.

4. On damages, the IPC Court calculated Crown’s compensation by using Crown’s royalty rate as benchmark (15% of unit price). Given that Defendants' customs and sales logs proved importation of 5,600 units and inventory of 1,764 units, demonstrating net sales of 3,836 units, the total reasonable royalties equaled NT$1,122,030 (3,836 units × NT$292.5). Because Crown only claimed NT$500,000, the IPC Court awarded the full amount claimed.

5. Additionally, the IPC Court also issued permanent injunction, ordering the Defendants to destroy all remaining inventory of the infringing "OMORY" bottles (1,764 units), and permanently enjoin from manufacturing, offering for sale, selling, using, or importing infringing beverage containers.

Source: https://judgment.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD/data.aspx?ty=JD&id=IPCV,115%2c%e6%b0%91%e5%b0%88%e8%a8%b4%2c19%2c20260727%2c2 

Fashion Brand Chrome Hearts LLC Prevailed in Trademark Action Against Bonny & Read

On September 7, 2026, Taiwan’s IP and Commercial Court (“IPC Court”) ruled in the favor of U.S. fashion brand Chrome Hearts LLC (“CH”), finding that its iconic cross designs were infringed by earrings and pendants sold by Bonny & Read Co. Ltd. (“BR”), and that BR should be subject to injunction and monetary damages. 

According to CH, BR’s earrings products are confusingly similar to its registered trademarks (Reg. No. 01571491, 01605376, and 01441526, see below), which have also been considered famous by Taiwan’s IP Office and IPC Court in other prior cases. 

BR argued that its earring products feature the flower petals in different style. Unlike CH’s registered trademarks, the tip of BR’s petal does not curve inwardly toward its circular center. Besides, CH’s designs of the cross and stylized characters were based on elements of Medieval Gothic, which should be quite common and of low distinctiveness. In sum, ordinary consumers would not confuse BR’s accused products with CH’s asserted trademarks (See below). 

The IPC Court sided with CH, determining that:

1. While BR tried to attack the distinctiveness of CH’s asserted trademarks, after reviewing the records, the IPC Court found the CH’s trademarks do demonstrate sufficient features that are distinct from commonly seen Gothic elements, and affirmed their distinctiveness. 

2. On similarity, the IPC Court considered a significant portion of BR’s accused products highly similar to CH’s trademarks. For example, both feature a circular design in the center with four 3-petal arms curling outwardly. Similarly, the stylized Gothic characters used by BR also resembles CH’s trademarks, both embody Medieval style with minor differences in the thickness of the letters and the number of “2011”. Except for product no. 6-2 and no. 7 (see below), which showed 2-petal design with different curling style, all other BR’s products are similar to CH’s asserted trademarks. 

3. On the designated products, CH’s trademarks are registered for use in jewelry, purses, apparel, and accessories, which are highly related to the function and purposes of the products sold by BR.

4. Based on evidence of marketing materials and sales records, the IPC Court agreed that through its extensive use, CH has established strong brand recognition for its asserted trademarks. On the other hand, BR’s evidence failed to prove that its products are highly recognizable in the relevant market. Hence, consumers are more familiar with CH’s trademarks, which shall be awarded with greater protection. 

5. In sum, the IPC Court ruled that BR's patterns are highly similar in overall visual composition to CH's registered trademarks, since both feature nearly identical four-directional three-petal florets, proportional cross extensions, or distinctive Gothic fonts. Plus, both parties supply similar accessories and jewelry, and CH has established strong brand image. The IPC Court therefore determined that there is a significant likelihood of confusion, ordered destruction of the infringing inventory and marketing materials, and awarded NT$ 1,500,000 in joint and several monetary damages plus 5% statutory interest.

Source: 115-Ming-Shang-Su-Zi No. 8 (IPC Court, 2026.9.7) https://judgment.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD/data.aspx?ty=JD&id=IPCV,115%2c%e6%b0%91%e5%95%86%e8%a8%b4%2c8%2c20260907%2c1

Staceypants Inc. Secured A Partial Win in Invalidation Against A Trademark Featuring A Lady's Face

On August 31, 2026, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) ruled in favor of Staceypants Inc. (“Staceypants”), partially invalidating a contested trademark after finding a likelihood of confusion with Staceypants’ iconic brand (Reg. Nos. 02012562 and 02012563, see below).

The contested trademark, Reg. No. 02343533 (see below), was filed jointly by F a Design Co. Ltd. and Happyface Co. Ltd. on April 14, 2023, and registered on December 16, 2023. The mark covered goods in Class 18, including wallets, leather bags, purses, backpacks, handbag, pet clothing, umbrellas, walking sticks, suitcases, etc. Staceypants filed invalidation action on December 13, 2024, alleging that registration of the contested trademark violated Articles 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

TIPO awarded a partial win in favor of Staceypants based on Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act:

1.      As a procedural matter, Staceypants initiated an invalidation action rather than an opposition within the 3-month opposition window. According to Article 57.2 of Trademark Act, Staceypants was required to further submit evidence of actual use of its cited trademarks during the 3 years prior to the filing of its invalidation request. In this respect, TIPO found Staceypants’ evidence sufficient to prove its actual use in apparel, handbags, footwear, and backpacks, but insufficient for goods such as umbrellas and walking sticks. Accordingly, TIPO’s analysis would be limited to the scope of goods supported by Staceypants’ proof of use.

2.      On similarity of trademark, TIPO noted that both trademarks prominently feature a lady’s face, with hair tied in a bun, sunglasses, and dark and prominent lips. Although there are differences in face contour and the bangs, TIPO considered these insufficient to make the contested trademark distinct from Staceypants’ icon. The degree of visual similarity is considered to be moderate.

3.      On the designated goods, TIPO observed that Staceypants genuinely used the cited trademarks in product category covered by the contested trademark, such as apparel, clothing, and handbags. Conversely, products such as umbrellas and walking sticks serve distinct functions and purposes, and TIPO considered them less related to fashion bags and apparel.

4.      TIPO recognized that Staceypants’ trademarks are distinctive, and Taiwan’s consumers are more familiar with Staceypants’ trademarks in fashion and bags. Nonetheless, due to defects in some of its submitted evidence, including the missing dates of use, and incomplete quantitative sales and marketing metrics, TIPO considered that Staceypants failed to meet the legal threshold for proving well-known status of its trademarks.

In light of the above, given the intermediate degree of visual similarity, the partial overlap in the designated products, and the established consumer familiarity, TIPO determined that consumer confusion is likely regarding wallets, apparel, backpacks, and suitcases. The contested trademark was cancelled for those overlapping categories. As to other unrelated products where no proof of actual use or well-known reputation was established, such as umbrellas and walking sticks, the registration remains valid.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOkAcgdovvMrI5ZHEyraxSCy%2FXTht9u