On November
30, 2023, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) found trademark “Artpple” confusingly
similar with Apple Inc.’s iconic trademark “APPLE” (no. 01591959 and no.
01457997, see below), and thus canceled the trademark “Artpple” accordingly.
The
contested trademark, “Artpple” (no. 02099376, see below), was filed by Millock
Limited (“Millock”) on March 31, 2020, and granted on November 1, 2020,
designated for use in goods under class 18 (purse, handbag, wallet, suitcase, etc.)
and class 25 (footwear, shoes, socks, shirts, jackets, etc.), and services
under class 35 (online-shopping, advertising, maintenance of computer database,
etc.). Apple Inc. filed opposition on February 1, 2021, citing violations of
Article 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.
TIPO
sided with Apple Inc. on November 30, 2023, finding registration of “Artpple”
violates Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act:
1.
Article
30.1.11 of Trademark Act provides that a mark shall not be registered if such a
mark “being identical with or similar to another person’s well-known trademark
or mark, and 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.
Here,
TIPO affirms that Apple Inc.’s registered trademarks “APPLE”, after years of its
successful sales and marketing in Taiwan, have become well-known. Such finding
is also supported by TIPO’s prior determinations in opposition involving the
trademark “APPLE”. Hence, TIPO holds that when Millock filed application for “Artpple”
on March 31, 2020, “APPLE” is already well-known among the relevant public.
3.
As
to similarity, TIPO notes that while “Artpple” has two additional letters “r”
and “t”, such difference does not affect the visual similarity between “Artpple”
and “APPLE”. Besides, the sequence and number of syllable of “Artpple” and “APPLE”
are also similar with each other. In light of the visual and verbal similarities,
TIPO opines “Artpple” resembles “APPLE” .
4.
TIPO
further notes that Apple Inc. not only uses “APPLE” in electronic products like
computer, but also diversifies and expands the brand to various kinds of goods
and services, like clothing, wallets, and retails services. It is reasonable
for ordinary consumers to expect Apple Inc. to develop products and services that
are similar with those designated by “Artpple”.
5.
Furthermore,
in comparison with evidence of trademark use submitted by Apple Inc., there is little
evidence that could back the use of “Artpple” in Taiwan. As a result, TIPO
finds consumers are more familiar with “APPLE” than “Artpple”.
6.
Given
that “APPLE” is famous on the filing date of “Artpple”, that “Artpple” is
visually and verbally similar with “APPLE”, that consumers are more familiar with
“APPLE” and that Apple Inc. has expanded its “APPLE” brand to products and
services that are related to those designated by “Artpple”, TIPO concludes that
it is likely for consumers to confuse “Artpple” with “APPLE”. Hence,
registration of “Artpple” is canceled per Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act accordingly.
Source:
沒有留言:
張貼留言