However, Taiwan’s IP Office (“IPO”) denied HYUNDAI’s
application, finding “eGV80” not distinctive.
According to Article 29.1.3 of Trademark
Act, a trademark that consists of signs that are devoid of any distinctiveness shall
not be registered. In this regard, a sign consisting of character and number usually
will be perceived as standard, model name, or specification of product or
service. For example, when seeing “4WD” used on cars, consumers would think of 4-Wheel
Drive. When seeing “MP3” used on music player, consumers would know it refers
to “MPEG Audio Layer-3”. When seeing “512MB” used on memory card, consumers
would understand it means the memory capacity.
Here, IPO found HYUNDAI’s application “eGV80”
consisting of “eGV” and “80”, which is pure combination of character and number.
Such combination, when used for automobile, truck, electric car, hybrid
electric vehicle, sports car, sport utility vehicle, and hydrogen fuel cell
electric car, will be understood as the standard or model name of the vehicle,
rather than distinctive sign indicating the source of goods or service
provided. Thus, IPO found HYUNDAI’s application shall be denied in accordance
with Article 29.1.3 of Trademark Act.
Lastly, it is worth mentioning that HYUNDAI’s
applications for its “eGV70” (application no. 108063276) and “eG80” (application
no. 108063278) were also denied by IPO based on similar legal basis (i.e.,
Article 29.1.3). We shall see if HYUNDAI would challenge IPO’s rejections and
appeal to the Petitions and Appeals Committee of Ministry of Economic Affairs.
沒有留言:
張貼留言