“VIVO” was found not similar with “VIOFO”

Shenzhen Viofo Technology Co., Ltd (“VTC”), a company providing car dash camera and IP camera products, filed trademark application for its “VIOFO” on September 15, 2015, designated for use in class 9, including products such as tablet, GPS, smart phone, camera, remote control equipment, display, battery charger, etc. VTC’s application was granted on August 1, 2016. (Reg. No. 01782436, see below)

 

VIVO Mobile Communication Co. Ltd. (“VBC”) filed opposition on October 13, 2016, contending that the registration of “VIOFO” would cause confusion with VBC’s “VIVO” trademark (Reg. No. 01954386, see below).

Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”), sided with VTC on January 7, 2021, rejecting VBC’s opposition based on the following reasons: 

1.    VBC argued, among the others, that VTC’s “VIOFO” shall be cancelled in view of Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Law, which provides that a mark shall not be registered if such a mark is similar with a senior mark that is applied for use in similar goods, and there exists likelihood of confusion among the relevant consumers.

2.    Here, TIPO found that VBC’s “VIVO” dissimilar with VTC’s “VIOFO”. Although both trademarks share the same letters “V”,”I”, and “O”, “VIVO” consists of four letters, while “VIOFO” consists of five letters. Besides, the pronunciation of “VIVO” is different than that of “VIOFO”, too. Thus, TIPO determined that consumers would not view “VIOFO” similar with “VIVO”. The degree of similarity is quite low.

3.    As to the designated goods, TIPO noted that some of the products designated by “VIOFO” are similar with those by “VIVO”, such as mobile phone and smart phone. However, products such as modem, recorder, plugs, anti-theft alarm, sports goggles, chips, etc., are not communication equipment, and thus shall be distinguishable from the goods in which “VIVO” was applied for use.

4.    TIPO also noted that “VIVO” and “VIOFO” are words that have no ordinary meanings and are not related to the quality or function of the designated goods. As such, both trademarks are distinctive. Although VBC’s “VIVO” possesses higher degree of recognizability and is more well-known among the relevant consumers in Taiwan, TIPO found there are other co-existing trademarks that are applied for use in similar products also featuring “V” and “I” as the initial letters, such as “VIN YOO” (Reg. No. 0168695), “Viano” (Reg. No. 01695051), “VITSMO” (Reg No. 01745989), and “VIZO” (Reg. No. 01787915). Hence, consumers should be quite familiar with this type of trademarks and will be able to distinguish “VIVO” from “VIOFO”.

 

In view of the above, TIPO found “VIOFO” not confusingly similar with “VIVO”, and denied VBC’s opposition accordingly.

 

 

Source: https://twtmsearch.tipo.gov.tw/OS0/OS0401_SCN3.jsp?issueNo=XpJ13RyT4RXZZMURhZEF0dVBkZS9FcHpMWjlvQT09&l6=zh_TW&isReadBulletinen_US=&isReadBulletinzh_TW=true