住戶在其屋內裝設監視器，拍攝其屋前之空間，未針對其他人拍攝，不會侵害該他人的隱私權

本案的兩位當事人都住在桃園的玉山官邸社區，因為被告在他房屋1樓面向中庭及社區大門的窗台架設監視器，且鏡頭對準中庭、社區大門及原告住所門外及通道等活動空間，導致原告親友進出社區大門或是在中庭交誼互動時都會遭被告所架設的監視器拍攝，原告因此依民法第18條第1、2項、第184條第1項前段、第195條第1項規定，請求被告拆除監視器、禁止架設拍攝公共空間的監視器並請求被告賠償精神慰撫金新臺幣60萬元

法院判決：

1.      隱私是指個人對他私領域的自主權利，保護範圍包括個人私生活不受干擾以及個人資訊的自我控制，但是人群共處經營社會生活，應受保護的隱私必須有所界限，也就是隱私是否存在，應該以個人對這個事物是否有合理期待作為判斷準則。所謂合理的期待，是指個人可以主張不受侵擾的自由，要以可以合理期待於他人者為限，也就是不僅他不受侵擾的期待已經表現在外，而且這個期待必須依社會通念認為是合理的。

2.      本件被告在他屋內的窗台處架設監視器，拍攝他房屋前面的空間，若調整監視器的角度，則除了可以拍攝到被告房屋前面的花圃以及中庭空間外，還可以拍攝到原告門口盆栽區域，但是經查看這個監視器的錄影擷圖，可以發現這個監視器的拍攝角度主要還是針對被告房屋前面的空間，而不是對準他人住宅門口。

3.      其次，玉山官邸社區的區分所有權人會議雖然決議：住戶不得對共同走道或共用中庭處所裝置供私人使用的錄影(音)設備，但是因為這個社區都是透天屋，各戶的正面都有落地窗，住戶透過落地窗就能觀看中庭活動，而且此中庭及社區大門，並不像有管制的公寓大廈2樓以上電梯間，可以特定出入人士為各層樓住戶以及他們的訪客，所以此中庭及社區大門並非私人空間。

4.       再者，這個社區的中庭是住戶的公共空間，與中庭連接的社區大門是對外鏤空的門扇，因此，住戶可以在屋內由門窗往中庭看，或在社區大門內經過中庭的人，或是在社區大門外的人，都可以看見人員進出中庭或是社區大門的情形，並無隱密性可言，因此住戶或訪客在中庭活動或進出社區大門，應該認知到可能會給不特定人知悉，所以依社會通念，很難認為會有隱私權的合理期待。

5.       因此，被告為了防盜、保障生命財產安全以及蒐集訴訟證據，而在他自己的房屋內設置監視器，拍攝他房屋前面的空間及中庭，並未針對原告拍攝，且被告實際上僅在他與原告或管委會的訴訟上使用這些拍攝的資料，並未散布、公開或為非正當目的之使用，並未侵害原告的隱私權，因此原告依民法第18條第1、2項、第184條第1項前段、第195條第1項規定，請求被告拆除監視器、禁止架設拍攝公共空間的監視器並請求被告賠償精神慰撫金，為無理由。

資料來源：臺灣高等法院108年度上字第1007號民事判決（https://law.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD/default.aspx）

LV Successful In Cancelling Similar “VUIT TON” Trademark in Taiwan’s IP Office

LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER (“LVM”), the registered owner of “LOUIS VUITTON” and “VUITTON” trademarks in Taiwan, filed opposition against Rise Edge Limited Taiwan (“Rise Edge”), alleging Rise Edge’s trademark (Reg. No. 01940391, see below) would cause dilution to the distinctiveness of its famous trademarks. On March 31, 2020, Taiwan’s Intellectual Property Office (“IPO”) sided with LVM.

Based on the records of IPO, Rise Edge filed the contested trademark on January 8, 2018, and designated such trademark for service in class 43, including cuisine service such as Japanese food restaurant, Japanese noodles, drink, shabu-shabu (Japanese-style hot pot), ramen, Japanese bar, etc. Rise Edge’s application was granted on September 16, 2018. LVM filed opposition with IPO on December 17, 2018, citing violation of Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act, which prescribes that a trademark shall not be registered if such mark is “identical with or similar to another person’s well-known trademark or mark, and hence there exists a likelihood of confusion on the relevant public or a likelihood of dilution of the distinctiveness or reputation of the said well-known trademark or mark.”

The IPO found Rise Edge’s contested trademark may dilute the distinctiveness of LVM’s “LOUIS VUITTON” and “VUITTON” trademarks.

1. LVM claimed, and the IPO agreed, that LVM’s registered “LOUIS VUITTON” and “VUITTON” trademarks“ are well-known trademarks (see below). The trademark “LOUIS VUITTON” is based on the name of its founder, and has been put in use by LVM since as early as 1896. Based on the records of trademark use and other supporting judicial and administrative determinations at hand, IPO found both “LOUIS VUITTON” and “VUITTON” are highly distinctive and famous in fashion goods such as apparel, clothes, bag, watches, accessories, hats, and boots after LVM’s continuous use and successful marketing throughout the world.                                          
2. With regard to similarity, the IPO determines that Rise Edge’s trademark is highly similar with LVM’s aforesaid famous trademarks, for the characters “VUITTON” are also presented and clearly discernible in Rise Edge’s contested trademark. Although Rise Edge tried to distinguish its trademark by disconnecting “VUIT” from “TON”, and replacing the “O” in “TON” with a piggy nose, IPO considers such difference is insufficient to make Rise Edge’s trademark distinguishable from LVM’s famous trademarks.
3.  Besides, the IPO notes that no matter it is “VUITTON” or “LOUIS VUITTON”, one can hardly find any other similar trademark used by third party in other different goods or services. In other words, LVM’s aforesaid trademarks are not only famous, but also unique. Thus, LVM’s famous trademarks shall be entitled to higher degree of exclusivity.
4. The more well-known a trademark becomes, the more likely that its distinctiveness will be diluted by other similar trademark, even when the designated goods or service is different, because the well-known trademark is so popular and widely recognized by the relevant consumers. If Rise Edge’s contested trademark is not cancelled, its continuous use may gradually erode and weaken the distinctiveness and uniqueness of LVM’s cited famous trademarks.

Based on the above reasons, the IPO concluded that Rise Edge’s contested trademark shall be cancelled in accordance with Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

Source: https://twtmsearch.tipo.gov.tw/OS0/OS0401_SCN3.jsp?issueNo=XpJ13RyT4cnJuYVJUNkxPckFEVDh2YmlZR3N5dz09&l6=zh_TW&isReadBulletinen_US=&isReadBulletinzh_TW=true

 

“NIVEA” Prevails In Opposition Proceeding Against Convatec’s “MEVIA”

On November 15, 2018, BEIERSDORF AG (“BEIERSDORF”), the registrant of “NIVEA” trademark in Taiwan (see below), filed opposition against CONVATEC INC.’s (“CONVATEC”) registered trademark “MEVIA” in Taiwan’s Intellectual Property Office (“IPO”), alleging violation of Article 30.1.11 of Taiwan’s Trademark Act. On March 18, 2020, IPO sided with “NIVEA”.

(Reg. No. 000039212)

The opposed trademark, “MEVIA” (see below), was filed on June 6, 2017, and granted on August 16, 2018, designated for goods under class 10 (mainly covers medical and diagnostic device) and class 5 (mainly covers medical product such as wound dressing, gel, and bandage). BEIERSDORF filed opposition against MEVIA for goods under class 5, claiming similarity between the two trademarks may raise confusion among the relevant consumers.

(Reg. No. 01934233)

The IPO found “MEVIA” should be cancelled based on the following reasons:

1.     First of all, “NIVEA” is a famous trademark. Records shows that BEIERSDORF has been using “NIVEA” for more than 100 years. In as early as 1905, BEIERSDORF had registered “NIVEA” for its sunscreen and body lotion product, and its first NIVEA trademark was registered with Taiwan’s IPO in 1970. Through its continuous use, NIVEA has become a famous trademark for skin care products prior to the filing date of “MEVIA” trademark (June 6, 2017).

2.     Besides, NIVEA and MEVIA are similar. Both trademarks present the combination of characters “E”, “V”, “I”, and “A”, with different initial character and different sequence. Such differences are minor, and a consumer with ordinary degree of care may still find the two trademarks similar.

3.     Further, NIVEA is highly distinctive, because it bears no relation with its designated goods such as body cleansing, beauty or cosmetic products. Comparing with MEVIA, NIVEA is more famous and should be given more favorable light when it comes to protectability.

4.     In addition, there is evidence showing that BEIERSDORF has expanded its business to medical product like medical bandage, ointment, etc., and acquired numerous trademark registrations for similar goods under class 5. Thus, there is likelihood that consumers may mistakenly believe that the two trademarks represent the same product, or there exists license or other business relationship between BEIERSDORF and CONVATEC.

In light of the above, the IPO found for “NIVEA” and ruled that “MEVIA” should be cancelled.

Source: https://twtmsearch.tipo.gov.tw/OS0/OS0401_SCN3.jsp?issueNo=XpJ13RyT4U0ZTNkhJMTdITkx4TWNIODg4Uk1Wdz09&l6=zh_TW&isReadBulletinen_US=&isReadBulletinzh_TW=true

Taiwan’s Intellectual Property Office found “Skyrover” similar with Jaguar’s famous “RANGE ROVER” trademark

On March 12, 2020, Taiwan’s Intellectual Property Office (“IPO”) denied trademark application for “Skyrover” (application no. 108046610, see below), which is applied for use in goods including wallet, umbrella, suitcase, handbag, briefcase, schoolbag, etc.

According to IPO, the trademark application is denied for being similar with Jaguar Land Rover Limited’s (“Jaguar”) registered trademarks (see below), which may cause confusion among relevant consumers.

(Reg. No. 720458)

 
(Reg. No. 02019128)

(Reg. No. 096055056)

The legal ground cited by IPO is Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act, which provides that a trademark shall not be registered for “being identical with or similar to another person’s registered trademark or earlier filed trademark and to be applied for goods or services identical with or similar to those for which the registered trademark is protected or the earlier filed trademark is designated, and hence there exists a likelihood of confusion on relevant consumers.”

In this case, the IPO first found that the applicant’s “Skyrover” and Jaguar’s registered trademarks all share similar character “ROVER”, which are similar with each other. Although the applicant combines “ROVER” with another word “sky”, such difference is minor, and consumers may still find “Skyrover” similar with Jaguar’s registered trademarks.

In addition, the goods covered by Jaguar’s registered trademarks are not limited to car or automotive parts only, but also include goods such as shopping bag, backpack, camping bag, smartphone case and tablet case, which serve similar function with goods designated by applicant’s “Skyrover”. Hence, the goods designated by “Skyrover” are similar with those designated by Jaguar’s registered trademarks.

Further, pursuant to IPO, Jaguar’s registered trademarks are highly distinctive, because they bear no relation with the nature or function of their designated goods. In light of such high degree of distinctiveness, the IPO posited that it is particularly likely that consumers may confuse applicant’s “Skyrover” with Jaguar’s registered trademarks.

Based on the aforesaid reasons, IPO denied the trademark application for “Skyrover” accordingly.

Source:

https://twtmsearch.tipo.gov.tw/OS0/OS0401_SCN3.jsp?issueNo=XpJ13RyT4OVhjeDJ5WGk2NzNkZS9FcHpMWjlvQT09&l6=zh_TW&isReadBulletinen_US=&isReadBulletinzh_TW=true