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