On July
14, 2023, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) sided with the luxury vehicle brand,
Jaguar, finding its trademarks “ROVER”, “LAND ROVER”, and “RANGE ROVER” (Reg.
No. 02019128, 02049069, and 02049080, see below) may be confused due to the
registration of the contested trademark “OWC Rover Pro”, and canceled the contested
trademark accordingly.
The contested trademark, “OWC Rover Pro” (Reg. No. 02140569, see below), was filed on September 18, 2020, and registered on May 16, 2021, designated for use in goods under class 9, including laptop racks, computer hardware, batteries and battery chargers, computer data storage devices, and computer software for backing up and storing computer data. Jaguar filed opposition on July 30, 2021, citing violation of Article 30.1.10 and Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.
TIPO
found for Jaguar on July 14, 2023, determining that the contested trademark
should be canceled based on 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.
On
similarity, TIPO considers the contested trademark “OWC Rover Pro” similar with
Jaguar’s above cited trademarks for all of them share similar word “Rover/ROVER”.
While there are additional words such as “LAND” and “RANGE” (in Jaguar’s cited
trademarks) and “OWC” and “Pro” (in the contested trademark), “Rover/ROVER”
should be the dominant part of these trademarks, and ordinary consumers may
still find these trademarks visually similar with each other.
3.
As
to the designated use of goods, TIPO notes that Jaguar’s trademarks are applied
for use in products such as computers for vehicles, computers for self-driving
vehicles, computer control equipment for providing driving and parking assistance,
and computer software and hardware for automobiles. Although these products are
not identical with those designated by the contested trademark, they are all related
to computer hardware and software, and serve similar purposes and functions. Thus,
TIPO considers that the contested trademark is applied for use in products that
are similar to or associated with those designated by Jaguar’s above cited
trademarks.
4.
Further,
based on the records of trademark use, including sales of vehicles, advertising
expenditures, marketing materials, and news reports, TIPO confirms that Jaguar’s
“ROVER”, “LAND ROVER”, and “RANGE ROVER” are distinctive and should be known to
the relevant public, especially in the field of automobile. Since consumers are
more familiar with Jaguar’s trademarks, TIPO opines more favorable weights should
be awarded to Jaguar’s trademarks than to the contested trademark.
5.
In
view of the above, given that the contested trademark is similar with Jaguar’s
cited trademarks, that the contested trademark is applied for use in similar products,
that Jaguar’s trademarks are highly distinctive, and that consumers are more familiar
with Jaguar’s trademarks, TIPO concludes that the registration of contested
trademark might cause confusion among the relevant public. Hence, TIPO rules
that the registration of “OWC Rover Pro” should be canceled accordingly.
沒有留言:
張貼留言