Taiwan’s IP Office Cancelled “M” Logo in View of Confusion with Netflix’s Iconic “N”

 On August 27, 2026, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) cancelled the contested trademark “M” based on a likelihood of confusion with Netflix’s iconic “N” trademark (Reg. No. 01845240, 01845375, 01846939, and 02480554, see below).

The contested trademark, “M” (Reg. No. 02496095, see below), was filed by Meow Media (“Meow”) on February 11, 2025, and registered on November 16, 2025. The mark covered services in Class 41, including entertainment services, video production, distribution of video recordings, screenplay writing, script adaptation, online video viewing services, providing non-downloadable video, etc. Netflix filed opposition on February 23, 2026, alleging that the registration of the contested trademark violated Articles 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

TIPO ruled in Netflix’s favor on August 27, 2026 under 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 other’s registered trademark, to be used in identical or similar services or goods, and hence may cause confusion among the relevant public.

2.      On similarity, TIPO observed that the contested “M” logo incorporated a folded-ribbon design, gradient coloring, and a three-dimensional visual effect, anchored by a curved base across the letter. Similarly, Netflix’s trademark features a red, three-dimensional and folded-ribbon letter. Given these similar artistic elements and comparable phonetic rhythms, TIPO found Meow’s “M” visually and phonetically similar to Netflix’s “N”.

3.      The services designated by Meow’s trademark, such as the entertainment service, distribution of video recordings, and video productions, overlapped with those covered by Netflix’s trademark. Both relate to digital media entertainment, content production, and audiovisual streaming services.

4.      TIPO further noted that Netflix has been the leading OTT streaming platform in Taiwan since 2022, and its market share has kept growing due to its continuous and successful collaborations with Taiwan’s movie industry, TAICCA, and extensive marketing in both online and offline channels. TIPO therefore determined that consumers are more familiar with Netflix’s “N”, entitling the senior mark to broader legal protection.

In view of the above, given the visual and phonetic similarity between the trademarks, the overlap of the designated services, and Netflix’s strong brand recognition, TIPO concluded that the registration of the contested trademark may cause confusion with Netflix’s logo. Accordingly, Meow’s “M” was cancelled.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOkAcsSrPuDX5VltqCiCzmz2r71LgjF

How To Determine the Aesthetic Features of A Design Patent? The Insight from Taiwan Court’s Decision On The “Sofa” Design Patent

On August 27, 2026, Taiwan’s Intellectual Property and Commercial Court (“IPC Court”) dismissed Ji-Lin Industrial Co. Ltd.’s (Plaintiff) patent infringement clam over its design patent “Sofa” (TW No. D229111, hereafter the ‘111 patent, see below).

The Defendant, Tai Yun Xing Sofa Enterprise Co. Ltd. (“Tai Yun Xing”), was accused of infringing the ‘111 patent by manufacturing and selling its “Amazon LY7606/5759 1-Person Sofa” (Hereafter the “accused product”, see below).

The IPC Court  firstly construed the scope of the ‘111 patent, including the overall aesthetic appearance of the sofa shown in the patent drawings. The design features a multi-component sofa assembly comprising a base support, legs, backplate, seat cushion, backrest cushion, headrest, and integrated armrests.

To determine if the asserted design is infringed by the accused product, the IPC Court elaborated that it would take the 2-step test: first, determining if the accused product is a product that is identical or similar to the ‘111 patent; second, if the accused product falls within the scope of the ‘111 patent. The first step looks into whether the accused product bears the same or similar function or purpose. The analysis of the second step is based on the standard of "Overall Observation and Comprehensive Judgment" from the perspective of an ordinary consumer. More specifically, the IPC Court will evaluate whether the commonalities and differences in design features, weighted by their visual prominence during normal purchase and use, create a confusingly similar overall visual impression.

For step 1, the IPC Court found the accused product was a sofa bearing the same function and purpose of use as the ‘111 patent. 

For step 2, the IPC Court identified the ‘111 patent’s notable visual features as follows: (1) armrest cushions extending integrally from the outer top edge of the armrests and folding inward with fan-blade shaped terminating ends; (2) a headrest narrowed/retracted in width relative to the chair back to produce a layered, tiered silhouette; (3) a headrest cloth extending downward from the top edge to drape over the front of the backrest; and (4) cylindrical support legs.

Based on the identified visual features, the IPC Court then assessed infringement via the framework of "Overall Observation and Comprehensive Judgment" from the viewpoint of an ordinary consumer. Upon further analysis, the IPC Court found that while the accused product also possessed the features of sofa’s main body and curved inclined trapezoidal backplate, the contour of its armrest cushion end, the width and tiering of its headrest, the coverage of its headrest cloth draping, and the shape of its backrest and support legs created substantial visual differences. 

Although the Plaintiff argued that the headrest cloth draping is located in an easily obscured area and should carry minimal weight, the IPC Court disagreed, holding that headrests are prominent focal points during purchase, and the front-and-rear draping remains clearly discernible from side and top views. The Plaintiff further argued that both sofas share armrest cushion folding and a two-tier segmented backrest, the IPC Court held that the armrest cushion ends exhibit distinct geometries (fan-blade vs. curved arc), and the perceived two-tier backrest in the accused product results naturally from a differently structured cloth drape, insufficient to establish visual similarity. The Plaintiff attempted to rely on the Three-Way Comparison Test against prior art to establish similarity. The IPC Court held that the three-way test is merely an auxiliary method. When an overall observation demonstrates that the accused product and the patented design are clearly dissimilar, non-infringement may be ruled directly without prior art triangulation (citing Supreme Court Ruling 111-Tai-Shang No. 1589).

In view of the above, the Plaintiff’s infringement claim based on ‘111 patent was rejected accordingly.

Source: 115-Ming-Zhuan-Su-Zi No.30 (IPC Court), at: https://judgment.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD/data.aspx?ty=JD&id=IPCV,115%2c%e6%b0%91%e5%b0%88%e8%a8%b4%2c30%2c20260827%2c2

PUMA SE Prevailed In Opposition Against the “FEISHOU & FEISHOU (stylized)” Trademark

On August 21, 2026, sports brand PUMA successfully challenged the registration for “FEISHOU & FEISHOU (stylized)” trademark. Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) cancelled the contested trademark after finding a likelihood of confusion with PUMA’s well-known “PUMA” logos (Reg. No. 00143672, 00131605, and 00088124, see below).

The contested trademark, “FEISHOU & FEISHOU (stylized)” (Reg. No.02464398, see below), was filed on December 30, 2024, and registered on July 1, 2025. The mark covered products in Class 12, including electric aircraft, remote-controlled vehicles, civilian drones, unmanned delivery aircraft, aerial photography drones, etc. PUMA filed opposition on September 26, 2025, alleging that the registration of the contested trademark violated Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

TIPO ruled in PUMA’s favor 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 in the relevant public, or may harm the reputation or dilute the distinctiveness of such well-known mark.

2.        TIPO affirmed PUMA’s iconic silhouette logo is well-known in Taiwan for footwear, apparel, and the relevant sports accessories. PUMA’s voluminous supporting records, including worldwide registrations of trademarks dating back to 1958, high-profile celebrity endorsements, and motorsport partnerships with Ferrari F1 (2004), BMW Motorsport(2012), and Porsche Motorsport (2019), alongside campaigns such as Jay Z’s “PUMA Jet”, sufficiently proved its strong brand recognition in Taiwan.

3.        On similarity, the contested trademark combines textual element “FEISHOU”, and a stylized graphic arrangement resembling a winged beast. PUMA’s well-known trademark, similarly, features the side silhouette of a leaping puma. TIPO observed that both trademarks feature the side silhouette of a beast leaping toward the left, positioned above textual elements. Therefore, the two trademarks share substantial visual and conceptual similarity.

4.        On the strength of the trademark, TIPO found that PUMA’s decades of extensive and diversified commercial use granted its mark a high degree of distinctiveness and broader exclusivity. In contrast, there was no evidence supporting the commercial use of the contested trademark.

5.        Although the contested trademark covered aerial vehicles in Class 12, TIPO considered that PUMA’s long-standing promotional presence in motorsports, private aviation, and luxury performance vehicles, make it likely that relevant consumers would associate specialized mobility products with PUMA’s strong and diversified brand universe.

Given the well-known status of the PUMA logos, the similarity between the two trademarks, the relatedness established through PUMA’s mobility partnerships, and consumers’ strong brand recognition, TIPO concluded that registration of the contested trademark may cause confusion with PUMA’s well-known icon. The contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.   

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOnCcYVpPsINtt3nqGJ9rDnB9movl1O

OpenAI Prevailed in Trademark Opposition Against Z.AI’s “ChatGLM”

On August 27, 2026, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) ruled in the favor of OpenAI OPCO LLC (“OpenAI”) in its opposition against Z.AI’s “ChatGLM”, finding the contested trademark to be confusingly similar to OpenAI’s “CHATGPT” (See below).

The contested trademark, “ChatGLM” (Reg. No. 02401552, see below), was filed by Z.AI on September 20, 2023, and registered on September 16, 2024. The mark covered products in Class 9, including computer software, downloadable computer application software, humanoid robots with communication and learning functions for assistance and reception, downloadable computer programs for artificially generating human speech and text, programs and software for natural language processing, generation, understanding, and analysis, etc. OpenAI filed trademark opposition on December 2, 2024, alleging that the contested trademark violated Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

TIPO found in the favor of OpenAI based on 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’s registered trademark, to be used in identical or similar goods or services, and hence there exists likelihood of confusion in the relevant public.

2.      While Z.AI contended that “Chat” is of low distinctiveness because similar trademarks have been widely adopted in the relevant markets, TIPO found these arguments unpersuasive. TIPO held the view that both OpenAI’s and Z.AI’s trademarks share the same structure, i.e., both are 7-letter words, consisting of the same initial 4 letters (i.e., Chat/CHAT) and another 3 letters with “G”. Ordinary consumers are likely to find “ChatGLM” to be visually and phonetically similar to “CHATGPT”.

3.      TIPO further found the designated products of the contested trademark highly relevant to those covered by OpenAI’s “CHATGPT”. For example, downloadable computer programs for artificially generating human speech and text, and the software and programs for natural language processing are related to OpenAI’s AI chatbot and the relevant product categories in terms of their nature, function, purpose, and targeted customers.

4.      TIPO acknowledged that “CHATGPT” stands for “Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer”, which could be descriptive. However, since OpenAI’s continuous and extensive use in 2022, such trademark has acquired secondary meaning and gathered considerable recognition from the relevant consumers.

5.      Moreover, TIPO found that the evidence of trademark usage from Z.AI insufficient to prove its market recognition. The records were defective for either postdating the filing date or being undated. On the other hand, the records submitted by OpenAI, including evidence showing its worldwide adoption, global and local media coverages, and hundreds of local textbooks and essays introducing the usage of “CHATGPT”, convinced TIPO that local consumers are more familiar with OpenAI’s trademark.

In view of the above, given the similarity between the two trademarks, the relatedness between the designated products, the acquired distinctiveness of “CHATGPT”, and the high market recognition, TIPO concluded that the registration of “ChatGLM” may cause confusion with OpenAI’s “CHATGPT”. The contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

 

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOkAc8QoPuoKcBpmqoFKMUFuW4VG0go

Yahoo inc. Prevailed in Invalidation Action Against “A虎” Trademark

 On July 22, 2026, Yahoo Inc. successfully invalidated a registered trademark “A虎”, convincing Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) that such contested trademark would cause confusion with its well-known “YAHOO!” and “雅虎” trademarks (see below).

The contested trademark, “A虎” (Reg. No. 02166976, see below), was filed by Charisma Technology Co., Ltd. (“Charisma”) on December 18, 2020, and registered on September 1, 2021. The mark covered services in Class 42, including computer data processing, web design, online data storage services, software as a service (SaaS), and cloud computing. Yahoo Inc. filed invalidation action on July 4, 2024, alleging that the registration of “A虎” violated Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

TIPO ruled in Yahoo Inc.’s favor based on Article 30.1.11, reasoning that:

1.      Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act provides that a mark shall not be registered if such a mark is identical with or similar to another person’s well-known trademark or mark, and hence there exists a likelihood of confusion in the relevant public or a likelihood of dilution of the distinctiveness or reputation of the said well-known trademark or mark.

2.      Here, according to the evidence submitted by Yahoo Inc., including the continuous and extensive use of trademark in its internet search services, e-commerce, mobile phone app, subscription services, and TIPO’s own decisions throughout the period of 1998 to 2020, “雅虎” has established well-known status in the field of world wide web information service Taiwan.

3.      On similarity, ordinary consumers would pronounced the contested trademark like [eiˈhu] or [aˈhu], while Yahoo Inc.’s “雅虎” may sound like [jaˈhu]. Visually, both trademarks end with the same Chinese character “虎” (“Hu”). Hence, visually and phonetically, “A虎” is similar to the well-known “雅虎” trademark.

4.      Although both “A虎” and “雅虎” have no specific meaning and are distinctive, due to Yahoo Inc.’s long term and extensive trademark use, consumers in Taiwan should be more familiar with “雅虎” than “A虎”.

5.      Moreover, the services covered by the contested trademark, such as computer data processing, cloud computing, etc., are quite related to Yahoo Inc.’s, such as internet search engine service and email services.

In view of the above, given the well-known status of Yahoo Inc.’s trademark, the visual and verbal similarity, the strong brand recognition of “雅虎” among the relevant consumers, and the relatedness between the designated services of trademarks, TIPO concluded that Charisma’s “A虎” would cause confusion with Yahoo Inc.’s ”雅虎”. The contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOmCMoVpftJE5v4UuotTBkCmFEpp969

Taiwan’s IP Office cancels “DarkKNIGHT” Trademark Following Opposition by DC Comics

On June 30, 2026, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) cancelled the contested trademark “DarkKNIGHT” following DC Comics’ opposition, finding the contested trademark confusingly similar to DC Comics’ iconic trademark for its caped crusader (See below, available at: https://www.warnerbros.com/movies/dark-knight).

The contested trademark, “DarkKNIGHT” (Reg. No. 02426026, see below), was filed on April 24, 2024, and registered on January 1, 2025, by Chimera Multinational Co. Ltd. (“Chimera”), a company specializing in heat transfer applications such as PU and PET films. The mark covered heat transfer films, industrial adhesive films, waterproof plastic films (not for package), etc. DC Comics filed opposition on March 31, 2025, alleging that registration of “DarkKNIGHT” would cause confusion with its well-known “The Dark Knight” trademark, and thus shall be cancelled according to Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

TIPO ruled in DC Comics’ favor on June 30, 2026, finding that:

1.      “The Dark Knight” was the title of DC Comics’ 2008 blockbuster superhero movie, and has sustained worldwide recognition. Comprehensive global marketing campaigns, extensive merchandise licensing (e.g., DVDs, phone charms, keychains, Bluetooth headsets, cosmetics, binoculars, and MP3 players), and the continuous multi-platform media exposure (e.g., YouTube, HBO, etc.), sufficiently established that prior to the filing date of the contested trademark, “The Dark Knight” as a trademark had been well-known in Taiwan for comic books, movies, and the relevant merchandise.

2.      On similarity, the contested trademark is nearly identical to the well-known “The Dark Knight Trademark”, differing only in capitalization and the omission of the definite article “The”. Ordinary consumers would find “DarkKNIGHT” visually, conceptually, and verbally similar to “The Dark Knight”.

3.      Additionally, DC Comics has established strong brand recognition for its “The Dark Knight” trademark, expanding into a wide array of consumer products, including apparel, toys, stationery, video games, watches, etc. Consumers should be more familiar with DC Comics’ well-known trademark.

4.      Although the contested trademark was designated for industrial film goods, the underlying technology, i.e., using heat or pressure to transfer text or image onto substrates, is routinely adopted in manufacturing apparel, toys, and 3C accessories, the goods associated with DC Comics’ merchandise. TIPO therefore considered there is relatedness between the respective scopes of goods.

5.      In view of the well-known status of “The Dark Knight”, the high similarity between the marks, the commercial connection between the products, and the strong brand recognition, TIPO concluded that the registration of the contested trademark would cause confusion with DC Comics’ well-known “The Dark Knight”. Chimera’s contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOmAssdrPvFuums0kvFzAgngnGhO2d2

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