Nike prevailed in trademark opposition against “SNKRS LAB”

On June 27, 2025, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) ruled in favor of Nike, cancelling the contested trademark that was confusingly similar to the sports giant’s famous trademark “SNKRS” (No. 01837088, see below).

The contested trademark, “SNKRS LAB” (No. 02330939, see below), was filed by Kaokuan International Trading Company (“Kaokuan”) on April 11, 2023, and granted on October 16, 2023, designated for use in goods in Class 1 (desiccant), 3 (detergents, foot deodorants, air fragrances, stain removers, etc.), 16 (paper towels, stickers, paper boxes, posters, photographs, publications, etc.), and 21 (shoe brushes, shoe stretchers, shoe horns, etc.). Nike filed an opposition on January 15, 2024, citing violations of Articles 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of the Trademark Act.

TIPO sided with Nike on June 27, 2025, cancelling the contested trademark based on Article 30.1.11 of the Trademark Act.

1.        Article 30.1.11 of the Trademark Act provides that a mark shall not be registered if such a mark is identical or similar to another’s well-known trademark, hence there exists likelihood of confusion among the relevant consumers, or likelihood of harm to the reputation or dilution to the distinctiveness of the well-known trademark.

2.        According to the records, Nike’s “SNKRS” has established strong brand recognition in the relevant markets through the successful launch of Nike’s SNKRS APP, continuous media coverage, sales campaigns, and marketing events (such as SNKRS Day). TIPO therefore found that on the filing date of the contested trademark, Nike’s “SNKRS” had become well-known in the fields of apps, online shopping services for apparel, and sneakers.

3.        On similarity, TIPO found that although there were some decorative elements in the contested trademark, consumers would still perceive the mark as “SNKRS LAB”. Besides, “LAB” is the abbreviation of “laboratory” and is considered descriptive, so “SNKRS” constitutes the dominant element of the contested trademark. Accordingly, TIPO considered the contested trademark visually, verbally, and conceptually similar to NIKE’s “SNKRS”.

4.        “SNKRS” has no ordinary meaning, and TIPO noted that there were no other registrants, except for Kaokuan and Nike, who had registered “SNKRS” as their trademarks. Thus, “SNKRS” should be highly distinctive.

5.        Given that the well-known status of Nike’s “SNKRS”, TIPO posited that the consumers should be more familiar with Nike’s trademark, and that Kaokuan should have known of Nike’s “SNKRS” when filing the application of contested trademark. Hence, TIPO inferred that the application was not filed in good faith.

6.        Since the designated products of the contested trademark, such as desiccant, detergents, shoe horn, shoe brush, and deodorants, are complementary items that could be used or distributed in association with shoes and apparel, TIPO considered these products to be related to the designated products of NIKE’s “SNKRS”.

7.        Based on the above, given that “SNKRS” is distinctive and well-known, that there is similarity between the trademarks, that consumers are more familiar with Nike’s “SNKRS”, and that the designated goods are related, TIPO concluded that registration of the contested trademark would create confusion among consumers. The contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

 

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOmBMYTrPtBmEfb1ELXco%2Bpc1TicPVd