2021年5月15日 星期六

Taiwan’s IP Office finds in favor of CHANEL, ruling “NANACOCO PROFESSIONAL” is confusingly similar with CHANEL’s “COCO” trademarks

 On November 1, 2019, CHANEL filed opposition against “NANACOCO PROFESSIONAL”, a trademark filed by ANNIE International Inc. (“ANNIE”), alleging that the registration of “NANACOCO PROFESSIONAL” would cause confusion with CHANEL’s famous “COCO” trademarks.

 

The contested trademark, “NANACOCO PROFESSIONAL”, was filed on September 19, 2018, and granted on August 1, 2019 (Reg. No. 02000421, see below), designated for use in goods under class 3, including various kinds of cosmetics, and other relevant products like toner, make-up remover, facial cleaner, etc.

 


CHANEL contended that ANNIE’s “NANACOCO PROFESSIONAL” is similar with its trademarks like “COCO” and “COCO MADEMOISELLE” (Reg. No. 00102776, 00438289, 01781763, and 01667227, see below), and is applied for use in similar cosmetics and personal hygiene products. Thus, “NANACOCO PROFESSIONAL” should be cancelled.

 








TIPO sided with CHANEL on March 22, 2021, finding registration of ANNIE’s “NANACOCO PROFESSIONAL” violated Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act:

 

1.      Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act provides that a mark shall not be registered if: 1) such a mark is identical with or similar to another person’s registered trademark or earlier filed trademark, and 2) 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 3) hence there exists a likelihood of confusion on relevant consumers.

2.      Here, TIPO notes that since “PROFESSIONAL” is ordinary word that means expert or specialist, it is descriptive and would not constitute the distinctive part of ANNIE’s “NANACOCO PROFESSIONAL”. In other words, ordinary consumers would view “NANACOCO” as the distinctive part of the contested trademark. In this light, as “NANACOCO” contains the same word “COCO” that is also used in CHANEL’s “COCO” and “COCO MADEMOISELLE”, ordinary consumers may find them visually and conceptually similar with each other. However, the degree of similarity is moderate.

3.      As for the designated goods, TIPO finds ANNIE’s “NANACOCO PROFESSIONAL” is applied for use in numerous cosmetics under class 3, which are highly similar with those designated by CHANEL’s “COCO” (for use in perfume, shower gel, and shampoo) and “COCO MADEMOISELLE” (for use in cosmetics, makeup, etc.). Thus, ANNIE’s “NANACOCO PROFESSIONAL” is applied for use in similar products that are designated by CHANEL’s “COCO” and “COCO MADEMOISELLE”.

4.      When it comes to the strength of the trademark, TIPO finds this factor also tilted to CHANEL’s favor, because CHANEL submitted voluminous records showing that by the filing date of ANNIE’s “NANACOCO PROFESSIONAL”, the cited “COCO” and “COCO MADEMOISELLE” trademarks have been famous and well known by the consumers in the relevant cosmetic and fragrance products. Although ANNIE also submitted evidence such as webpage and sales records in support of its trademark use, TIPO finds the cited website less helpful because the website is not operated in Taiwan and has no date of use. Besides, the records also showed that the alleged sale of products was not proceeded in Taiwan. Thus, based on the evidence of trademark use, TIPO determines that consumers are more familiar with CHANEL’s “COCO” and “COCO MADEMOISELLE”.

 

In view of the above, since there is moderate degree of similarity between ANNIE’s “NANACOCO PROFESSIONAL” and CHANEL’s “COCO” and “COCO MADEMOISELLE”, the designated goods of these trademarks are highly similar, and consumers are more familiar with CHANEL’s “COCO” and “COCO MADEMOISELLE”, TIPO determines that the registration of ANNIE’s “NANACOCO PROFESSIONAL” might cause confusion among the relevant consumers. Hence, ANNIE’s trademark “NANACOCO PROFESSIONAL” was cancelled by TIPO based on Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act.

 

Source:

https://twtmsearch.tipo.gov.tw/OS0/OS0401_SCN3.jsp?issueNo=XpJ13RyT4TFo4RjBLT0ZuV2F6SE5oSGt0c0hHUT09&l6=zh_TW&isReadBulletinen_US=&isReadBulletinzh_TW=true

沒有留言:

張貼留言

Starbucks successful in invalidation action against trademark “星爸爸 Starpapa”

On November 28, 2024, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) ruled in favor of global coffee giant, Starbucks Corporation (“Starbucks”), finding the di...