Schwan-Stablio’s attempt to cancel Swarovski’s swan trademark fell short

On June 11, 2025, the Taiwan’s Petitions and Appeals Committee of Ministry of Economic Affairs (“Committee”) rejected an appeal filed by Schwan-Stablio, affirming that Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) was correct in finding that Swarovski’s contested trademark would not cause confusion with the German brand’s iconic swan logo (no. 00851896, the ‘896 mark, see below).

Swarovski’s contested trademark, no. 02226817 (see below), was filed on December 1, 2020, and granted on June 1, 2022. It covered wide range of products in Class 3, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28; and services in Class 35, 41, and 43. Schwan-Stablio filed opposition on September 1, 2022, alleging that Swarovski’s registration for Class 16, which included notebooks, catalogues, book marks, greeting cards, diaries, etc., would cause confusion with the cited ‘896 mark. 

TIPO sided with Swarovski on January 17, 2025, finding that while the ‘896 mark has been well-known in the field of stationery products, the consumers would not confuse the contested trademark with the ‘896 mark. There is no violation of Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act. Schwan-Stablio appealed. 

Before the Committee, Schwan-Stablio particularly argued that when viewed as a whole, both trademarks formed visual impression of a swan, differing only in minor aspects such as head orientation and wing style. Besides, in other jurisdictions, such as EU, Turkey, and Egypt, there have been findings of similarity. Further, Schwan-Stablio argued bad faith, noting that its swan logo has been famous for years before Swarovski’s contested trademark was filed. Schwan-Stablio urged the Committee to overturn TIPO’s determination.

The Committee did not rule in the favor of Schwan-Stablio, reasoning that:

1.        Image of has been commonly used and registered as trademark in Taiwan. In fact, in Class 16, there were other registered trademarks featuring similar logos. Hence, consumers in Taiwan are familiar with such imagery, and should be able to distinguish different swan designs While both trademarks feature swans, this alone does not necessarily create likelihood of confusion. 

2.        Additionally, upon further review, there indeed are sufficient differences. For example, the contested trademark featured a swan poised to flight, while the ‘896 mark depicted a swan gliding smoothly on water. There are also other differences, such as the design and shape of the wings, the posture and position of the swans, and the contour and style of their heads. TIPO was therefore justified to find low similarity between the contested trademark and the ‘896 mark.

3.        Assessment of trademark confusion in its nature is territorial and local, which may vary depending on the actual use, consumers’ perception, trade practice, and legal standard. As a result, foreign decisions are not binding on TIPO or the Committee. 

4.        Moreover, records showed that Swarovski had long used swan logo for its jewelry products, and the contested trademark was part of its rebranding initiative in 2021. Without more concrete evidence showing free riding or deceptive intent, Schwan-Sablio’s allegation of bad faith was unfounded. 

To conclude, although Schwan-Stablio’s swan icon is well-known, the designated products are related, and both trademarks feature swans, the Committee found no likelihood of confusion, and affirmed that TIPO’s determination was correct based on the low similarity, the lack of evidence showing bad faith, and the distinctiveness of Swarovski’s contested trademark. 

 

Source: 

TIPO’s decision: 

https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOiAskTpvusGijcp6OgcwGULUP6yaMj

The Committee’s decision:

https://pamsdmz.moea.gov.tw/pams-public/api/download/20250706_decisionDownload-A211402028_175833_293_4CTPL0df5c/