On July 31, 2024, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) entered a decision in the favor of Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research (“Mayo Foundation”), finding registration of “INDIMAYO” may cause confusion with Mayo Foundation’s trademark “MAYO CLINIC” (no. 01797607 and no. 01799196, see below).
The contested trademark, “INDIMAYO” (no. 02306863, see below), was filed by Maywufa Co. Ltd. (“Maywufa”) on December 13, 2022, and granted on July 16, 2023, applied for use in goods under class 5, including drug for human use, nutrition supplements, medical shampoo, animal detergent, baby food, Chinese medicine, hair care, medical dietary supplements, etc. Mayo Foundation filed trademark opposition on October 13, 2023, citing violations of Article 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.
TIPO sided with Mayo Foundation, determining that the contested trademark shall be canceled based on Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act:
1. TIPO first finds that both Maywufa’s “INDIMAYO” and Mayo Foundation’s “MAYO CLINIC” contain the word “MAYO”, which constitute the dominant portion of the respective trademarks. If “INDIMAYO” and “MAYO CLINIC” are used in the same or similar products or services, TIPO opines consumers may consider both trademarks represent the same supplier or affiliated business entities. Hence,Maywufa’s “INDIMAYO” is considered verbally, visually, and conceptually similar with Mayo Foundation’s above cited trademarks.
2. As to the designated use of goods, TIPO finds Maywufa’s “INDIMAYO” is applied for use in goods such as drug for medical use, medical dietary supplements, medical shampoo, etc.; and Mayo Foundation’s “MAYO CLINIC” is applied for use in services such as health consultation, medical test, healthcare, and products such as diagnostic devices, medical devices, etc. While there is minor difference between the respective designated products and services, TIPO consider the products designated by Maywufa’s “INDIMAYO” related to or associated with those designated by Mayo Foundations’s “MAYO CLINIC”, because both serve similar function or purpose.
3. Further, TIPO notes that Mayo Foundation’s “MAYO” is highly distinctive, and has been recognized as well-known trademark in previous TIPO’s determination. In other words, the relevant consumers are more familiar with Mayo Foundation’s “MAYO CLINIC” than Maywufa’s “INDIMAYO”.
4. According to Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act, a mark shall not be registered if such a mark is “being 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 the relevant consumers”. Since there is similarity between “INDIMAYO” and “MAYO CLINIC”, both trademarks are applied for use in related or similar products or services, and consumers are more familiar with Mayo Foundation’s “MAYO CLINIC”, TIPO concludes that consumers may be confused in view of the similarity between Maywufa’s and Mayo Foundation’s trademarks.
As such, Maywufa’s “INDIMAYO” is canceled based on Article 30.1.10 accordingly.
沒有留言:
張貼留言