Fashion brand “JIMMY CHOO” successful in trademark opposition against Korean Brand “CHUU”

In a trademark opposition initiated by J. CHOO LIMITED (“J. CHOO”) against Korean brand “CHUU”, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) sided with J. CHOO, finding “CHUU” should be canceled due to likelihood of confusion with J. CHOO’s registered trademarks “CHOO” (Reg. No. 01661633, 01888397, 02003379, 01539950, and 01744963, see below).

\

“CHUU”, a trademark held by Korean brand PPB STUDIOS CO. (“PPB”), was filed for registration on January 8, 2020, and granted on December 1, 2020 (Reg. No. 02104604, see below), designated for use in goods under class 25, including vests, sweaters, shirts, t-shirt, suits, trousers, coats, jackets, garments, shoes, scarves, socks, gloves, belts, etc. J. CHOO filed opposition on February 25, 2021, citing, among the others, violation of Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Law.

 

TIPO ruled in favor of J. CHOO on February 9, 2023, reasoning that:

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

2.      Here, TIPO finds the contested trademark “CHUU” similar with the cited “CHOO” in that both start with “CH”, and the last two letters “UU” resemble “OO” in its visual impression. In its entirety, TIPO consider “CHUU” visually and verbally similar with “CHOO”.

3.      As to the designated goods, both J. CHOO’s cited trademarks and PPB’s contested trademark are put in use on apparel, clothing, and the related accessories. These products are identical to or similar with each other in their nature, so TIPO considers the degree of similarity is high.

4.      The brand “JIMMY CHOO” is originated from the name of J. CHOO’s founding designer, and is not related to the nature or function of the designated products. In addition, TIPO finds J. CHOO’s cited trademarks distinctive, and highly popular within the relevant consumers after years of successful marketing and branding around the globe. Consumers in Taiwan are more familiar with “CHOO”.

5.      Although there is evidence showing the Korean brand “CHUU” has also been used on various kinds of apparel and known by consumers in Taiwan since 2014, TIPO considers such evidence, when comparing against the voluminous evidence of trademark use of “CHOO”, is insufficient to show “CHUU” is famous enough so that consumers in Taiwan could distinguish “CHOO” from “CHUU”.

 

In view of the above, given that “CHUU” is similar with “CHOO”, that both trademarks are designated for use in highly similar products, that “CHOO” is distinctive and more famous and known by the relevant consumers, TIPO is convinced that the registration of “CHUU” may cause confusion with J. CHOO’s “CHOO”. As such, PPB’s trademark “CHUU” is canceled accordingly.  

 

Source:

https://twtmsearch.tipo.gov.tw/OS0/OS0401_SCN3.jsp?issueNo=XpJ13RyT4dzJNejUvQkdKZWo0dm83YWNqNlhnZz09&l6=zh_TW&isReadBulletinen_US=&isReadBulletinzh_TW=true