On March 31, 2025, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”)
denied a trademark opposition filed by Prada against the registered trademark “jiu
jiu”. TIPO found the contested trademark not confusingly similar to Prada’s “MIU
MIU” trademark (no. 00832518, see below).
The contested trademark, “jiu jiu” (no.
02323938, see below), was filed by Home Product Inc. (“Home Product”) on
February 3, 2023, and granted on October 1, 2023, designated for use in goods in
class 3, including cosmetic cotton swabs, cotton pads, make-up removers, facial
soap, baby soap, bath essences, bath gel, soap, natural essences, flower
essences, etc. Prada filed opposition on December 28, 2023, citing violation of
Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act.
TIPO ruled in the favor of Home Product,
determining that there should be no confusion caused by registration of “jiu
jiu”:
1.
Article 30.1.10 of Trademark
Act 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.
On the similarity of the trademarks,
while both “jiu jiu” and “MIU MIU” consist of a word combination of two three-letter
words, and both end with the letters “iu”, TIPO opined the difference in pronunciation
(i.e., “/dʒju//dʒju/” vs. “/mju//mju/”) and visual impression caused by the
initial letters (i.e., “j” vs. “M”) makes it unlikely for ordinary consumers to
confuse Home Product’s contested trademark with that of Prada’s. The degree of
similarity between the contested trademark and Prada’s cited trademark was deemed
low.
3.
On the similarity of the
designated products, TIPO agreed with Prada that the scope of products covered
by Home Product’s “jiu jiu” overlaps with those designated by Prada’s “MIU MIU”,
which also include various kinds of cosmetics and cleaning products, such as facial
and body cleansers, soap, shampoo, conditioner, perfume, and essential oils.
4.
As to the distinctiveness of the
trademarks, TIPO found both “jiu jiu” and “MIU MIU” quite distinctive, since
both have no specific definition and are not related to the nature or function
of the products they cover.
5.
On consumers’ familiarity, TIPO
noted that the designated products of “jiu jiu” belong to the categories of personal
hygiene and cosmetics. Although Prada did submit considerable evidence to prove
the fame and recognition of the “MIU MIU” trademark, TIPO found the evidence mostly
pertaining to Prada’s bags, shoes, apparel, and related accessories, not cosmetics
and personal hygiene. Thus, TIPO was unable to determine if consumers in the relevant
market were more familiar with Prada’s “MIU MIU” in relation to these specific
goods.
6.
Based on the above, given the
low degree of trademark similarity, the distinctiveness of the contested
trademark, and the lack of evidence showing consumers’ familiarity with “MIU
MIU” for the relevant product categories, TIPO concluded that the registration
of Home Product’s “jiu jiu” would not cause confusion with Prada’s “MIU MIU”.
Prada’s trademark opposition was denied accordingly.
Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/OS0/OS0401_SCN3.jsp?issueNo=XpJ13RyT4RVNTWmFXK0gzNUsxd2FZUXVZV0NxZz09&l6=zh_TW&isReadBulletinen_US=&isReadBulletinzh_TW=true
沒有留言:
張貼留言