On March 24, 2021, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) sides with Amazon Technologies Inc. (“Amazon”), finding “Amazon Fuse” not confusingly similar with the cited trademark “FUSE” in trademark opposition proceeding.
The challenged trademark, “Amazon Fuse”,
was filed for application on February 26, 2018, and granted on June 1, 2019
(Reg. No. 01991639, see below). “Amazon Fuse” is designated for use in goods under
class 9, and services under class 35, 38, 40, 41, 42, and 45. On August 27,
2019, the trademark holder of “FUSE” in Taiwan filed opposition against “Amazon
Fuse”, citing violation of Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act.
The asserted trademark, “FUSE”, was filed
for application on October 13, 2017, and granted on November 1, 2018 (Reg. No.
01948733, see below), designated for use in services under class 35. According
to the trademark owner of “FUSE”, Amazon’s “Amazon Fuse” is a similar trademark
because it uses the same word “fuse”, and is also applied for use in services
under class 35. Thus, Amazon’s registration for services under class 35 shall
be cancelled due to violation of Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act.
TIPO found in Amazon’s favor, ruling that
the relevant public would not be confused by registration of “Amazon Fuse”:
1.
Article 30.1.10 of Trademark
Act provides that a trademark shall not be registered if said trademark is
similar with a senior trademark that is applied for use in similar goods or
services, and hence there exists likelihood of confusion among the relevant
public.
2.
Here, Although the asserted
trademark “FUSE” and the challenged trademark “Amazon Fuse” both use the word
“fuse”, TIPO notes that “fuse” is an ordinary word that refers to fuze and
detonator, so “fuse” as a trademark is not highly distinctive. Since it is
undisputed that “Amazon” as a trademark has been well-known by the relevant
pubic, “Amazon” should be the main distinctive portion of the challenged
trademark, and consumers are more inclined to use “Amazon” to identify the
source of the provided services or goods. Thus, while it is likely that
ordinary consumers would find “Amazon Fuse” similar with “FUSE”, the degree of
similarity should be low.
3.
It is quite common for brand to
develop series of trademarks by combining a famous logo that is already
well-known by the consumers and a mark that aims to help consumers to
distinguish the brand’s different product line. Here, TIPO noted that Amazon is
using its already famous trademark “Amazon” together with “Fuse” for the
services under class 35, which covers Amazon’s services that consumers are
quite familiar with, such as online shopping. Thus, there should be no
difficulty for consumers to distinguish “Amazon Fuse” from “FUSE”. Besides,
there is little evidence submitted to prove the actual use of “FUSE”, so TIPO
finds it difficult to believe that “FUSE” is well-known by the consumers and
thus may be confused with Amazon’s “Amazon Fuse” for service under class 35.
4.
As to similarity of the
designated services, TIPO finds part of services designated by “Amazon Fuse”,
such as advertising, B2B consulting, digital content subscription, online
database management, online shopping, inventory management, etc., are similar
with those designated by “FUSE”. However, there are other services designated
by “Amazon Fuse”, such as rental service for office equipment, computer
software, computer hardware, e-book, etc., that are different from services
designated by “FUSE.” Therefore, only part of the services designated by
“Amazon Fuse” are similar with those by “FUSE”.
Given that the degree of similarity is low
between “Amazon Fuse” and “FUSE”, that consumers are more familiar with “Amazon
Fuse”, and that only part of the designated services of “Amazon Fuse” are
similar with those by “FUSE”, TIPO concluded that the registration of “Amazon
Fuse” would not cause confusion with “FUSE”. As such, the opposition against
“Amazon Fuse” based on Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act is rejected by TIPO.
Source:
沒有留言:
張貼留言