Nanjing Aisiyou Clothing Co. Ltd. (“NAC”), an apparel brand based in China, filed trademark application for “SUAMOMENT” on April 12, 2017, designated for use in clothing, pants, dresses, knitted clothes, underwear, children's clothing, baby clothes, waterproof clothes, shoes, hats, clothing gloves, scarves, socks , skirts, jackets, shirts, swimsuits, clothing belts, and sneakers. NAC’s opposed trademark was granted on December 1, 2017 (Reg. No. 1883792, see below)
Monster Energy Company (“MEC”) filed opposition against NAC on February 26, 2018, contending that the registration of the opposed trademark would cause confusion with MEC’s registered claw trademarks (see below)
The IP Office (TIPO) disagreed, denying MEC’s opposition on December 26, 2018, finding NAC’s opposed trademark did not violate the cited Trademark Act. MEC, after losing its appeal before the Appeal Board, filed complaint with Taiwan’s IP Court (TIPC), requesting TIPO’s ruling should be vacated.
TIPC, based on the following reasons, upheld TIPO and Appeal Board’s decisions:
1.
The
opposed trademark and MEC’s cited trademarks are dissimilar. Although both
trademarks display the design of a claw, the shape and style of the claws are
different. NAC’s claw is displayed at different angle, with blood dripping down
below. Besides, NAC’s trademark further includes the word mark “SUAMOMENT”,
which provides another distinguishable element for the opposed trademark. Thus,
in terms of difference in overall appearance, pronunciation, and conception,
TIPC found TIPO was correct in finding the opposed trademark not similar with
MEC’s cited trademarks.
2.
MEC
contended that the opposed trademark is applied for goods that are similar with
those designated by MEC’s cited trademarks. But TIPC did not think so. The
court found that while both NAC and MEC applied for use in similar goods such
as boots, shoes, and clothes; MEC’s cited trademarks were applied for use in
other goods that are different from NAC’s opposed trademark, such as smart phone,
tablet computer, cell phone, nutrition supplants, and drinks. Thus, the court
did not find the goods designated by NAC’s trademark similar with those
designated by MEC’s cited trademarks.
3.
As
to the strength of distinctiveness, the court found both MEC’s and NAC’s
trademarks unrelated to the nature and function of the designated goods, so the
claws featured in MEC’s trademarks and NAC’s opposed trademark are arbitrary and
distinctive.
4. The court noted that in comparison to NAC’s opposed trademark, MEC’s cited trademarks are used in more diversified goods. However, there is no evidence showing actual confusion, and no records suggesting NAC’s and MEC’s products are sold through the same channels.
In view of the above, since NAC’s opposed trademark is not similar with MEC’s cited trademarks; only part of the goods designated by MEC’s trademarks are similar with those designated by NAC’s; and there is no evidence showing actual confusion and NAC’s bad intent, the court in the end ruled that the registration of NAC’s opposed trademark is not likely to cause confusion with MEC’s cited trademarks.
沒有留言:
張貼留言