On March 3, 2025, the Petitions and Appeals
Committee (“Committee”) of the Ministry of Economic Affairs affirmed the determination
made by Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”), which found that the contested trademark “Julius
Tart” shall be invalidated due to likelihood of confusion with “TART” trademark
(no. 01481575, see below), a popular glasses brand registered and owned by TART
OPTICAL ENTERPRISES LLC (“Tart Optical”) since 2011 in Taiwan.
The Committee did not find The Light’s
arguments persuasive. In its determination denying The Light’s appeal, the Committee
reasoned that:
1.
On similarity, TIPO was correct
to find “Julius Tart” similar to “TART”. “Tart” was the dominant portion of “Julius
Tart” that may form visual, verbal, and conceptual similarity with Tart Optical’s
“TART”. The presence of “Julius” and variations of font size, letter case, and
style were minor differences that are insufficient to make The Light’s “Julius
Tart” distinguishable from “TART”.
2.
On the designated products, both
trademarks cover products related to eyeglasses and its components that serve
similar function and purpose to correct eye’s vision. As such, The Light’s “Julius
Tart” was designated for use in goods that are similar to those covered by Tart
Optical’s “TART”.
3.
The Light submitted evidence of
trademark use and specifically argued that consumers in Taiwan shall be more
familiar with “Julius Tart”. The Committee disagreed, finding The Light’s
supporting evidence, at best, was only able to show it has used “Julius Tart”
for its products sold in Taiwan prior to the filing date of its contested
trademark. The Committee pointed out that without records showing the market
share, revenue, and marketing expenses, The Light’s evidence such as webpages,
social media posts, worldwide trademark registrations, news reports, and
YouTube videos, was insufficient to prove local Taiwanese’s familiarity with “Julius
Tart”.
4.
While The Light argued that its
registration of “Julius Tart” was authorized and based on good faith, the Committee
found this factor secondary, and, even assuming to be true, was insufficient to
neutralize the strong inference of likelihood of confusion caused by the similarity
between the two trademarks and the overlap of the designated products.
In view of the above, the Committee determined
that TIPO was not erroneous in finding likelihood of confusion between “Julius
Tart” and “TART”, and affirmed TIPO’s finding accordingly.
Source:
TIPO’s decision:
The Committee’s decision:
沒有留言:
張貼留言