On June 16, 2021, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) denied Lenovo’s trademark opposition against the registered trademark “IOT PAD YOGA CONNECT”, finding Lenovo’s “YOGA” not similar with “IOT PAD YOGA CONNECT”, and there would be no confusion caused among the relevant public.
Lenovo’s
trademark, “YOGA” (Reg. No. 01667590, see below), was filed on September 27,
2012 (priority date: March 30, 2012 ), and designated for use in goods under class
9, including computer, laptop, software, etc.
The
challenged trademark, “IOT PAD YOGA CONNECT” (Reg. No. 02025626, see below),
was filed by E-Century on January 19, 2019, and granted on December 1, 2019, also
designated for use in goods under class 9, including computer hardware, software,
mouse pad, internet equipment, mobile phone, touch panel, communication
equipment, mobile power device, etc.
Lenovo filed opposition on February 27, 2020, alleging the registration of the challenged trademark would violate Article 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Law. However, TIPO did not side with Lenovo in its final determination.
1.
TIPO
finds the degree of similarity between “IOT PAD YOGA CONNECT” and “YOGA” is low.
The only similarity between the two trademarks is the word “YOGA”. However, TIPO
notes that “YOGA” is an ordinary word that has been used in other registered
trademarks. Ordinary consumers are less likely to use “YOGA” alone to distinguish
the source of the supplied goods or services. Additionally, the font size of “YOGA”
presented in “IOT PAD YOGA CONNECT” is relatively small. As such, when being viewed
in its entirety, the word “YOGA” in “IOT PAD YOGA CONNECT” would not be the main
distinctive portion. Moreover, there are graphical drawings displayed in “IOT
PAD YOGA CONNECT”, which makes the challenged trademark more distinguishable from
Lenovo’s word mark “YOGA”. Therefore, the similarity between the two trademarks
is low.
2.
As
to the designated goods, TIPO opines that some of the designated goods, such as
computer hardware, software, mouse pad, and internet equipment, indeed are
similar or associated with those designated by Lenovo’s “YOGA”. However, TIPO
notes, there are other products that are dissimilar and less relevant with the designated
goods of Lenovo’s “YOGA”, such as mobile phone, mobile power device, etc.
3.
As
to distinctiveness, TIPO affirms that both “YOGA” and “IOT PAD YOGA CONNECT”
demonstrate certain degree of distinctiveness when being used in products under
class 9.
4.
While
it is undisputed that Lenovo’s “YOGA” has been registered as trademark in
multiple jurisdictions around the globe, and that the relevant product lines,
e.g., YOGA BOOK, have been very successful in terms of their sale and market
share, TIPO finds these records insufficient to show “YOGA” has already become
well-known when application for the challenged trademark was filed, because
these documents either do not directly show the use of Lenovo’s trademark “YOGA”,
or lack the corresponding date of use.
In view
of the above, considering that the records are insufficient to show Lenovo’s “YOGA”
has achieved well-known status, that the degree of similarity between the two
trademarks is low, that both of them demonstrate certain degree of distinctiveness,
and that they are not applied for use in exactly the same kind of products, TIPO
finds the registration of “IOT PAD YOGA CONNECT” is not based on bad faith and
would not cause confusion with Lenovo’s “YOGA” trademark. Hence, Lenovo’s opposition
is denied accordingly.
Source:
沒有留言:
張貼留言