HTC Prevailed In Opposition Over Its “HTC VIVE” Trademark

On October 31, 2025, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) cancelled the contested “Htc” trademark, finding such trademark may cause confusion with HTC’s “HTC VIVE” trademark (Reg. No. 01803242, see below). 

The contested trademark, “Htc” (Reg. No. 02425673, see below), was filed by Highlight Tech Corp. (“Highlight”) on May 24, 2024, and granted on January 1, 2025. It was designated for use in goods in Class 9, including computer programs, downloadable applications, scanners, chips, semiconductors, wearable electronic devices, etc. HTC filed opposition on April 2, 2025, alleging that the registration for wearable electronic devices shall be cancelled in view of Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, or 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

TIPO sided with HTC on October 31, 2025, cancelling “Htc” based on Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act:

1.    Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act provides that a mark shall not be registered if it is identical or similar to another’s registered trademark, designated for use in identical or similar goods or services, and therefore may create confusion among the relevant consumers. 

2.    On similarity of trademark, TIPO noted that both the contested trademark and HTC’s “HTC VIVE” contain the same English letters “H”, “T”, and “C”, which constitute the dominant portion of the trademarks. Although the contested trademark includes an additional blue frame surrounding the letters, TIPO considered such differences minor. The contested trademark was deemed visually and verbally similar to HTC’s “HTC VIVE”.

3.    On similarity of designated products, HTC’s “HTC VIVE” was designated for smart glasses and wearable devices consisting of software and display, which are similar to the wearable electronic devices covered by the contested “Htc”. TIPO considered both products categories to provide similar functions for smart wearables.

4.    While both “Htc” and “HTC VIVE” are distinctive, TIPO noted that based on HTC’s extensive evidence of trademark use, including market share data, sales reports, TIPO’s prior determinations, awards, exhibitions, news reports, and media coverages, “HTC VIVE” is more recognizable among the relevant consumers. 

5.    In view of the above, given the similarity between the trademarks, the overlap of designated products, and the strong brand recognition established by “HTC VIVE” in the field of VR wearable devices, TIPO concluded that the contested trademark would create confusion with HTC’s well-known brand. The contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

 

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOlCc8UpvtJiaCEr7%2BshsbbRH5OA6Xx

Products Achieving the Patented Result Does Not Warrant a Finding of Infringement under Doctrine of Equivalents

In a patent infringement lawsuit involving utility model patent M513550 (the ‘550 patent), the appellate panel of Taiwan’s Intellectual Property and Commercial Court (“IPC Court”) rejected patentee’s arguments based on doctrine of equivalents, and upheld the lower court’s finding of non-infringement (114-Ming-Zhuan-Shang-Zi No. 11).  

 

The ‘550 patent, entitled “Support plate”, is a utility model patent directed to a foldable frame that could provide better stability and convenience in fixing and supporting one’s electronic devices, such as smartphones or tablets.

 

The patentee of ‘550 patent, Senseage Co. Ltd. (“Senseage”) , sued Uniicreative Co. Ltd. (“Uniicreative”) before Taiwan’s Intellectual Property and Commercial Court (“IPC Court”), alleging that Uniicreative’s products “Kira Kobai” (magnetic mobile power bank with supporting panel), “Spunk” (magnetic mobile power bank with supporting panel), and “Apex Skinarma IML” (smartphone case with supporting panel) infringed at least Claim 1 of the ‘550 patent. At the first instance level, the IPC Court rejected Senseage’s claim, finding no infringement. Senseage then appealed. 

 

On November 6, 2025, the IPC Court entered its judgment in Uniicreative’s favor, upholding the lower court’s finding that the accused products did not infringe Claim 1.

 

Claim 1 of the ‘550 patent reads:

  ”A support plate (100) for supporting an electronic device includes a first plate (110), a foldable portion (160), and a second plate (200). 

The foldable portion (160) is connected to the first plate (110) and the second plate (200) respectively. 

The first plate (110) further includes a connecting portion (210) away from the foldable portion (160) and an abutting portion (220) adjacent to the foldable portion (160). 

The second plate (200) has at least one connected portion (120) and an anti-slip element (140) attached to one side of the second plate (200).

The connecting portion (210) is foldable and can be connected and positioned with the connected portion (120). 

The abutting portion (220) can support the second plate (200) and forms a downward angle with the second plate (200).”

 

On Appeal, the parties’ argument mainly focused on whether the accused products have “The second plate (200) has at least one connected portion (120) and an anti-slip element (140) attached to one side of the second plate (200).” The IPC Court determined that the accused products did not have “an anti-slip element attached to one side of the second plate.” 

More specifically, for Uniicreative’s “Kira Kobai” and “Spunk“ series, the IPC Court noted that when charging user’s device, e.g., the smartphone, the smartphone could be fixed by the underlying magnetic coil without an “additional anti-slip element that is attached to one side of the second plate”. As to Uniicreative’s “Apex Skinarma IML” series, the IPC Court found that it is a smartphone case with supporting panel, and that when in use, the smartphone would actually be covered and fixed within the smartphone case, without any additional ant-slip element.

The Senseage argued that Uniicreative shall nonetheless infringe under doctrine of equivalents, because the magnetic coil and the surrounding structure of the smartphone case achieve similar anti-slip result through substantially similar way and function. That is, when in use, the position of the device will be fixed. The IPC Court disagreed, reasoning that the function of the claimed anti-slip element is to prevent the device from dropping or slipping, while that of the magnetic coil of the “Kira Kobai” and “Spunk“ series is to provide stable transmission and connection when charging the device. As to the surrounding structure of the smartphone case, the IPC Court found the function of the surrounding of a smartphone case is to protect and cover the smartphone, which is substantially different from that of the claimed anti-slip element.

In view of the above, the IPC Court upheld the lower court’s finding of non-infringement, and denied the patentee’s appeal accordingly. 

Source: 

https://judgment.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD/data.aspx?ty=JD&id=IPCV,114%2c%e6%b0%91%e5%b0%88%e4%b8%8a%2c11%2c20251106%2c2

Sanyang Motor Beat Patent Infringement Claim Based on Prosecution Estoppel

On November 4, 2025, Taiwan’s IP Court ruled in the favor of Sanyang Motor (“SYM”), rejecting patent infringement claim based on Taiwan invention patent I401180. (113 Ming-Zhuan-Su-Zi No. 49).

 

The I401180 patent (‘180 patent) was directed to an enhanced warning function that aims to provide extra way to turn on motorcycle’s headlight assembly when in some situations, such as collision accident, the start switch could not be used to turn on the motorcycle’s light assembly.

 

The language of claim 1 of the ‘180 patent recites that: 

“ A vehicle with three wheels or less and enhanced warning function includes a vehicle body, a power supply (32) housed within the vehicle body, a headlight assembly (33) mounted on the vehicle body, a controller (34) that controls the headlight assembly (33) to illuminate and is powered by the power supply (32), and a start switch (35) disposed between the controller (34) and the power supply (32); characterized in that: the vehicle body is further provided with an emergency switch (36), the emergency switch (36) having a connecting wire (361) electrically connected to the power supply (32) and the controller (34) respectively, and an opening and closing element (362) disposed on the connecting wire (361); furthermore, the start switch has a keyhole (351), and the keyhole (351) is interconnected with the connecting wire (361), so as to additionally utilize the emergency switch (36) to connect the power supply (32) and the controller (34) to control the headlight assembly to illuminate (33).” 

 

A representative figure of the ‘180 patent is as follows:

The parties stipulated that the MMBCU model met the requirements “A vehicle with three wheels or less and enhanced warning function includes a vehicle body, a power supply (32) housed within the vehicle body, a headlight assembly (33) mounted on the vehicle body, a controller (34) that controls the headlight assembly (33) to illuminate and is powered by the power supply (32), and a start switch (35) disposed between the controller (34) and the power supply (32)”. However, SYM argued that its product did not possess the limitation: “the vehicle body is further provided with an emergency switch (36), the emergency switch (36) having a connecting wire (361) electrically connected to the power supply (32) and the controller (34) respectively, and an opening and closing element (362) disposed on the connecting wire (361); furthermore, the start switch has a keyhole (351), and the keyhole (351) is interconnected with the connecting wire (361) , so as to additionally utilize the emergency switch (36) to connect the power supply (32) and the controller (34) to control the headlight assembly to illuminate (33)”. 

More specifically, SYM contended that its emergency switch is connected to the controller and the light assembly, not the controller and the power supply; and that the keyhole of its start switch was not connected to the same wire as the opening and closing element.  The Plaintiff, on the other hand, argued that SYM infringed under doctrine of equivalents. 

The Court held that: 

1. During prosecution, any modification, amendment, or response that resulted in narrowing the claimed scope would subject the patentee to estoppel, that is, the patentee will not be able to reclaim what was narrowed or disclaimed during prosecution. 

2. In this case, the Court sided with SYM, finding the plaintiff should be subject to prosecution estoppel when, during prosecution of the ‘180 patent, it added the element “the start switch has a keyhole (351), and the keyhole (351) is interconnected with the connecting wire (361)”, and emphasized in its response to Patent Office’s office action that the keyhole was located on said connecting wire that also connected with the opening and closing element of the emergency switch. 

3. As such, the Plaintiff shall be prohibited from expanding its claimed scope to capture arrangement that “the keyhole and the opening and closing element each located on different connecting wire”, which is the approach taken by SYM when arranging the wire connection for its light assembly module of MMBCU.

In view of the above, the Court rejected that patentee’s infringement claim against SYM accordingly.

Source:

https://judgment.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD/data.aspx?ty=JD&id=IPCV,113%2c%e6%b0%91%e5%b0%88%e8%a8%b4%2c49%2c20251104%2c3

Smiley prevailed in trademark opposition over its iconic “Smile” logo

On October 31, 2025, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) ruled in favor of Smiley Company SPRL (“Smiley”), cancelling a contested trademark that was likely to create confusion with Smiley’s iconic “Smile” logos (Reg. No. 00804023 and 00891560, see below).

The contested trademark “Smile wheat ale & device” (Reg. No. 02351982, see below ) was filed by the Korean company Booth Ltd. on July 17, 2023, and granted on January 16, 2024. The trademark was designated for use in goods in Class 32, including beer, alcoholic beverages, non-alcoholic beer, etc. Smiley filed opposition on April 16, 2024, citing violation of Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

TIPO sided with Smiley, cancelling the contested trademark based on Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act:

1.    Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act provides that a mark shall not be registered if such a mark is identical or similar to another’s registered trademark, designated for use in identical or similar goods or services, and hence likely to cause confusion among the relevant consumers. 

2.    On similarity, TIPO noted that the contested trademark consisted of a smile logo and text “Smile wheat ale”. Because wheat ale is descriptive, TIPO considered the dominant portion of the contested trademark to be the smile logo and the text “Smile”. Compared with Smiley’s “Smile” logos, TIPO found that both trademarks conveyed a similar visual and conceptual impression, and thus deemed the contested trademark similar to Smiley’s “Smile” logos.

3.    Regarding the designated products, Smiley’s logos were also registered for beverages such as mineral water, soda, lemonade, juice, and beer. TIPO considered these similar to the product categories covered by the contested trademark.

4.    While both the contested trademark and Smiley’s logos are distinctive, TIPO found that the similarity of the marks and the overlap in designated goods would nonetheless create confusion among the relevant consumers. Hence, the contested trademark was cancelled. 

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOlBsgcovtcTcSGZpY6DYn2NGTxcJ10

Taiwan’s IP Court Rejected Yunix’s Trademark Infringement Claim over PGA Tour Logo

 On October 7, 2025, Taiwan’s IP Court rejecting a trademark infringement action filed by Yunix International Corp. (“Yunix”), finding the relevant consumers will not confuse Yunix’s golfer trademarks (No. 00642284 and No. 02007836, see below) with the PGA Tour logo used by PGA Tour Inc. (“PGA”), and The Professional Golfers’ Association of America (“PGAA”) (Case no.: 112-Ming-Shang-Su-Zi No. 6).

According to Yunix, it obtained trademark registration for the asserted trademarks in 1983 and 2019 respectively, and both were designated for use in clothing, apparel, pants, skirts, sportswear, etc. In 2003, PGAA acquired Yunix’s consent letter for its application of “PGA Tour & Design” trademark (No. 01256424, see below). However, without Yunix’s further consent, PGAA and PGA authorized co-defendant Shing Kong Textile Corp. (“Shing Kong”) to manufacture and distribute sportswear bearing the PGA Tour logo (“PGA Tour logo”, see below). Yunix argued that such unauthorized use caused confusion with Yunix’s asserted trademarks. Accordingly, Yunix filed trademark infringement action against PGA, PGAA, Shing Kong, and the distributor Aloo Ltd. Co. (“Aloo”), requesting injunctive relief and NT$ 4.5 million as monetary damages.

PGA and PGAA did not appear before the Court. Shing Kong argued that the PGA Tour logo was originated from the famous PGA golf event, and that the logo has been used since as early as 1980. Due to the successful worldwide marketing of the golf event, the PGA Tour logo has already been well-known in Taiwan before Yunix filed its application for the asserted trademark in 1993. Shing Kong also contended that Yunix’s asserted trademarks were filed with intent to mimic PGA’s well-known brand, and that given the well-known status of the PGA event, no confusion would be created because consumers could easily distinguish the PGA Tour logo from Yunix’s asserted trademarks.

The Court rejected Yunix’s claim, determining that:

1.    The PGA Tour logo was similar to Yunix’s asserted trademarks and used in similar apparel product.

2.    However, due to PGA’s continuous and extensive use of its PGA Tour logo, the Court found the evidence sufficient to prove consumers should be able to distinguish the PGA Tour logo from Yunix’s asserted trademarks. Indeed, the evidence of trademark use and strong brand recognition suggested that consumers should be more familiar with the PGA Tour logo, so no confusion with Yunix’s asserted trademarks will be caused.

3.    The Court also noted that on the apparel produced and sold by Shing Kong, there were additional texts “PGA Tour” added, so that consumers should be able to identify and distinguish the source of the product. Moreover, Yunix did not raise any evidence of actual confusion, and there was nearly no evidence of trademark use submitted by Yunix.

4.    The Court further noted that the PGA Tour logo has been used in PGA event way earlier that the filing date of the Yunix’s asserted trademarks, and that Yunix’s consent letter did not explicitly prohibit PGA’s and PGAA’s license of the PGA trademark. As a result, PGA’s and PGAA’s license to Shing Kong, and Shing Kong’s and Aloo’s use of the PGA Tour logo should be based on good faith.   

5.    In light of the above, while the PGA Tour logo was found similar to Yunix’s asserted trademarks and was used in similar apparel products, the Court concluded that there would be no confusion because the PGA Tour logo was actually more famous and recognizable among the consumers, there were additional texts “PGA Tour” that could help consumers to distinguish the source, there is no actual confusion, and Shing Kong, PGA, and PGAA had no intent to mimic Yunix’s asserted trademarks.

After considering all the factors, Yunix’s claims for injunction and monetary compensation were rejected by the Court accordingly.

Source: 

https://judgment.judicial.gov.tw/FILES/IPCV/112%2c%e6%b0%91%e5%95%86%e8%a8%b4%2c6%2c20251007%2c1.pdf

The Petitions and Appeals Committee affirmed TIPO’s denial of trademark application featuring chrysanthemum crest

On October 16, 2025, the Petitions and Appeals Committee of Taiwan’s Ministry of Economic Affairs (“Committee”) found the flower design in a trademark application too similar to the Japanese official seal (also known as Chrysanthemum Seal, see below), and affirmed the decision of Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) to reject such application.

                                             (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_crest_of_Japan)

The trademark application, “雪の恋 YUKI & LOVE” (Application No.  112051966, see below), was filed on July 31, 2023, designated for use in goods in Class 30, including various kinds of pastries, cakes, moon cakes, egg rolls, pineapple cakes, cookies, etc. The application was denied by TIPO on June 4, 2025, citing violation of Article 30.1.2 of the Trademark Act, which prohibits registration of trademark that is identical or similar to national flags, official seals, or other state emblem of foreign countries notified by any WTO member per Paragraph 3 of Article 6ter of the Paris Convention. TIPO found the flower icon shown in such application similar to the mark of the Chrysanthemum Seal.  

The applicant appealed, arguing that there were multiple differences between its trademark and the Chrysanthemum Seal. For example, the text “雪の恋 YUKI & LOVE” is placed at the center, and its flower contains 12 petals, while the Chrysanthemum Seal has 16 petals.

 

The Committee disagreed, finding that the flower mark constituted the dominant portion of the applicant’s trademark, and that it demonstrated visual similarity to the Chrysanthemum Seal. Specifically, both icons featured petals extending symmetrically from the center of the flower. The variations identified by the applicant were so minor that ordinary consumers would still consider the two designs visually similar to each other.  

 

In light of the similarity with the Chrysanthemum Seal, the Committee upheld TIPO’s decision, affirming that rejection of the trademark application was appropriate.

 

Source: 

TIPO’s decision:

https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOhCMsUrfuEf9%2BmI8PQRCQNh6Mn5Sb0

 

Committee’s decision:

https://eportal2.moea.gov.tw/EE120/api/download/20251102_decisionDownload-A111407013_094151_587_WzMkYUXESa/