On September 10, 2025, the Appeals and Petitions Committee of the Ministry of Economic Affairs (“Committee”) denied the appeal of Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. (“Sony”), holding that Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) did not err in finding the contested trademark would not create confusion with Sony’s trademarks (Reg. No. 00971797, Reg. No. 01125754, Reg. No. 02204821, Reg. No. 01447909, and Reg. No. 01552630, see below).
The contested trademark, Reg. No. 02308293 (see below), was filed on December 9, 2022, and granted on July 16, 2023, designated for use in services in Class 35, including retail and wholesale of toys, retail and wholesale of educational and recreational products, agency, targeted advertising, internet marketing, department store, convenience store, online shopping, TV shopping, etc. Sony filed opposition on October 16, 2023, alleging that registration of the contested trademark violated Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.
On Appeal, Sony particularly emphasized that ordinary consumers would view the four geometric shapes displayed in the contested trademark as the most dominant elements, that Sony’s cited trademarks had become well-known through continuous use, and that the registration of the contested trademark was based on bad faith because it would create confusion or dilution.
The Committee upheld TIPO’s findings, reasoning that:
1. Although both the contested trademark and Sony’s cited trademarks contained four geometric shapes, there were other graphical and textual elements, such as “曲卡電玩” and “CHIKA”, that would make consumers distinguish between the two. Taken as a whole, consumers would find the contested trademark visually, conceptually, and verbally different from Sony’s cited trademarks.
2. Sony submitted substantial amount of evidence, including the photos of joysticks, webpages, YouTube channel, news reports, and photos of exhibitions, to show the actual use of its cited trademarks, but the evidence was insufficient. For example, although the four geometric figures were displayed on the joysticks, consumers would view them as part of the product design rather than as a source identifier of Sony’s service. As for the news reports and webpages, some were in foreign languages, while others failed to show the complete image of Sony’s cited trademarks. Although the cited trademarks indeed appeared in the photos of Sony’s exhibitions and YouTube Channel, the volume of these materials was limited and insufficient to establish that Sony’s cited trademarks were well-known in Taiwan.
3. Regarding Sony’s allegations that the contested trademark was filed with bad faith or diluted the distinctiveness of its cited trademark, the Committee found no concrete evidence to support these claims. Even though the contested trademark contained the same geometric figures in the same sequence, this alone was insufficient to prove intent to imitate.
4. In view of the above, considering the low degree of similarity, the distinctiveness of the contested trademark, the lack of evidence of bad faith and insufficient proof of the well-known status, the Committee concluded that registration of the contested trademark will not create confusion. Therefore, TIPO was not erroneous in rejecting Sony’s opposition.
Source: the Committee’s decision
The TIPO’s decision:
沒有留言:
張貼留言