AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (“Amazon”), the trademark registrant of “ECHO” (Reg. No. 01966088, see below) in Taiwan, filed opposition on May 30, 2019, alleging the registration of trademark “ECGO” would violate Article 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.
The contested trademark, “ECGO” (Reg. No. 01974458, see below), was filed on July 30, 2018, and granted on March 1, 2019, designated for use in services under class 37, including instrument installation and repair, car maintenance and repair, vehicle repair station, vehicle lubrication, vehicle battery charging, tire refurbishment, etc.
Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) ruled in favor of Amazon on May 17, 2021, determining that the contested trademark violated at least Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act:
1. Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act
provides that a trademark shall not be registered if such a mark is:
1)
identical with or similar to
another person’s well-known trademark or mark, and
2)
hence there exists a likelihood
of confusion on the relevant public or a likelihood of dilution of the
distinctiveness or reputation of the said well-known trademark or mark.
2. TIPO finds Amazon’s ECHO
represents the brand of Amazon’s popular smart speaker powered by “Alexa”, the
AI-driven voice assistant. Since 2014, Amazon has successfully registered series
of trademarks, including “ECHO”, “AMAZON ECHO”, “ECHO DOT”, “AMAZON ECHO DOT”,
in numerous jurisdictions such as the U.S., Australia, EU, Japan, Hong Kong,
UK, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. Through Amazon’s continuous marketing
and promotion, “ECHO” has gained the status of well-known trademark in Taiwan
prior to July 30, 2018, the filing date of the contested trademark.
3. The contested trademark “ECGO” and
Amazon’s “ECHO” are visually and verbally similar with each other, because both
consist the letters “E”, ”C”, and ”O”, with the minor difference in their third
letters, i.e., “G” vs “O”. Thus, TIPO opines that there is medium degree of similarity.
4. Turning to the strength of
trademark, TIPO finds Amazon’s “ECHO” is distinctive, and, based on the evidentiary
materials submitted by Amazon, recognizes that “ECHO” has become a well-known
trademark in Taiwan. Thus, Taiwan’s consumer is more familiar with Amazon’s “ECHO”.
5. Further, TIPO notes that there
are sufficient records showing Amazon’s “Alexa” has been applied to the field
of automobile (e.g., Ford and BMW). For example, by calling “Alexa” and
activating the system “Amazon Echo” or “Echo dot” installed in a car, the driver
could easily access various kinds of information regarding the vehicle,
including the fuel condition, tire pressure, mileage, and the power of battery.
Accordingly, since the services designated by the contested trademark pertain
to car maintenance and repair, vehicle repair station, vehicle lubrication, and
vehicle battery charging, TIPO posits that consumers may find these services associated
with those provided by Amazon’s “ECHO”.
Based on the aforesaid reasons, TIPO is
convinced that the registration of “ECGO” would cause confusion with Amazon’s well-known
“ECHO”, and determines that the contested trademark shall be cancelled per
Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.
沒有留言:
張貼留言