Taiwan’s IP Office Cancelled A Trademark That Is Confusingly Similar To Adidas’ Iconic Trefoil Logos

 In a trademark opposition initiated by Adidas AG (“Adidas”), Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) sided with the sports brand, cancelling the contested trademark after finding it confusingly similar to Adidas’ iconic trefoil logos (Reg. No. 00167065, 00360933, and 01300822, see below).

The contested trademark (Reg. No. 02442098, see below) was filed on August 23, 2024, and granted on March 16, 2025, which covered products in Class 25, including clothes, pants, casual wear, sportswear, skirts, shoes, socks, gloves, hats, scarfs, etc. Adidas filed opposition on May 16, 2025, alleging violation of Articles 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

On November 26, 2025, TIPO ruled in the favor of Adidas based on Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act:

1.        On similarity, TIPO noted that both the contested trademark and Adidas’ cited trademarks featured three-leaf logo crossed by three white lines, with only minor differences in shapes of the leaves. Ordinary consumers would still find them conceptually and visually similar to each others.

2.        On the designated products, both Adidas’ trademarks and the contested trademark covered apparel and related accessories, such as sportswear, socks, shoes, etc. As such, TIPO found there was similarity between the designated products. 

3.        While the contested trademark demonstrated certain degree of distinctiveness, TIPO noted that Adidas’ trefoil logos have achieved strong recognition among the relevant consumers via extensive use in various product lines and marketing campaigns. For example, the “Clot” sneaker collaboration in 2023, the Disney Duck apparel and footwear collaboration in 2024, and the continuous marketing on media platforms such as GQ, ELLE, YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook. Hence, consumers are more familiar with Adidas’ trademarks.

4.        In view of the above, considering the similarity between the trademarks, the overlap of product category, and Adidas’ strong brand image among the relevant consumers, TIPO concluded that the registration of the contested trademark would likely create confusion with Adidas’ famous logos. The contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

Source: 

https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOqAsoQoPsZBqUdOPmSRCc6DJP3AlR1

Taiwan Court Found Patent Not Novel For Being Publicly Sold on Shopee Before the Filing Date

In a patent infringement lawsuit involving between the patentee, Focus On Your Car Ltd. (“Focus”), and the defendant, Mr. Pin-Hao Lin (“Lin”), the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court (“IPC Court”) found Focus’ design patent, D234007 (‘007 patent), not patentable for not being novel under Article 122 of Patent Law. (Case No.: 114-Ming-Zhuan-Su-Zi No. 19)

The ‘007 patent, titled “Clip-on Bracket”, is directed to the design of a clip-on frame that could be embedded in the interior of a car for placing the mobile phone. The parties did not dispute that the product supplied by Lin fell into the patented scope. However, Lin argued that all the features of ’007 patent, including the twisted and curved corner, trapezoidal projection, thin shell, and fan-shaped bottom, have all been disclosed in product publicly sold on Shopee. The IPC Court agreed (see below).

 Per Article 122 of Patent Act, a design which is industrially applicable may be granted a design patent upon application in accordance with this Act, provided any of the following does not exist: 1. an identical or similar design was disclosed in a printed publication prior to the filing of the patent application; 2. an identical or similar design was publicly exploited prior to the filing of the patent application; or 3. the design was known to the public prior to the filing of the patent application.

The ‘007 patent was filed on March 1, 2024. Based on the sales records, purchase order, and notarized webpages from Shopee, the IPC Court found that the product embodying the ‘007 patent, at the very least, has been publicly accessible on February 16, 2024. Hence, the IPC Court ruled that the ‘007 patent shall be unpatentable for lacking novelty.

Source: https://judgment.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD/data.aspx?ty=JD&id=IPCV,114%2c%e6%b0%91%e5%b0%88%e8%a8%b4%2c19%2c20251217%2c2

DC Comics Prevailed in Opposition for Its Well-known Batman Trademarks

In a trademark opposition initiated by DC Comics (“DC”), Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO ”) cancelled the contested trademark “4X4 TEAM & Device”, finding that it would likely cause confusion with DC’s famous Batman icons (Reg. No. 00107465, 00045938, and 02146215, see below).

The contested trademark, “4X4 TEAM & Device” (Reg. No. 02442629, see below), was filed on June 26, 2024, and granted on March 16, 2025, designated for use in services in Class 35, including advertising design, development of marketing concept, advertising, design of catalogue, market research, poll surveys, public relationship, internet shopping, retail services for downloadable digital music, etc. DC filed an opposition on June 13, 2025, alleging violation of Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

On November 26, 2025, TIPO ruled in the favor of DC, finding that:

1.        Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act provides that a mark shall not be registered if it is identical or similar to another’s well-known mark, and hence may cause confusion among the relevant consumers, or may harm or dilute the reputation or distinctiveness of such well-known mark.  

2.        Based on extensive evidence of trademark use submitted by DC, including the sales of licensed merchandise, worldwide trademark registrations, media coverages, film series released between 1992 and 2016, and TIPO’s prior supporting determinations, TIPO agreed that before the filing date of the contested trademark, DC’s Batman icons had already become well-known in the relevant entertainment sector, such as movie, apparel, toys, and backpacks.

3.        Both the contested trademark and DC’s cited trademark featured a bat image with spread wings and pointed ears. From the viewpoint of ordinary consumers, the contested trademark is visually and conceptually similar to DC’s well-known trademarks.

4.        Given the extensive recognition of DC’s Batman icons, their distinctiveness serve as strong source identifiers for consumers. Moreover, as the bat-signal scene projecting the Batman logo has become so iconic and widely recognized by the general public, TIPO found that the contested trademark’s adoption of a similar circular icon design demonstrated an intent to create an association with DC’s famous brand.

5.        In view of the above, considering the well-known status and strong distinctiveness of DC’s Batman logos, the high degree of similarity between the marks, and the applicant’s intent to create association with DC’s trademarks, TIPO concluded the registration of the contested trademark, even for different services, would likely dilute the strong and singular association of DC’s well-known Batman trademarks. Hence, the contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

 

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOqAswVrfsfUrxgssWRoHh7ft3OvgBC

Moncler Secured a Win in Trademark Opposition against “MONQUX”

Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) sided with Italian brand Moncler in its trademark opposition against “MONQUX”, finding the contested trademark would cause confusion with its classic icon “MONCLER & device” (Reg. No. 01429876, see below).

The contested trademark, “MONQUX & device” (Reg. No. 02369647, see below), was filed on September 19, 2023, and granted on April 16, 2024, designated for use in Class 25, including vests, pants, jackets, T-shirts, scarfs, neckties, raincoats, clothes, etc. Moncler filed opposition on July 16, 2024, alleging violation of Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

On October 1, 2025, TIPO ruled in favor of Moncler 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, to be used in identical or similar products or services, and hence may create confusion among the relevant consumers.

2.        TIPO firstly noted that both trademarks consisted of a stylized and eye-catching letter “M” embedded in a circle in the upper half, and letters spread out evenly along the side of the circle in the lower half. From the viewpoint of visual and oral impression, both trademarks demonstrated similar arrangement and overall structure, and shared the same initial letters “MON”. TIPO therefore considered there is similarity between the two trademarks.

3.        As to the designated products, Moncler’s trademark was also registered for apparel such as menswear, jacket, shirts, T-shirts, coats, suits, raincoats, swimsuits, etc., which are related to clothing and overlap with those designated by the contested trademark. 

4.        While both trademarks were distinctive, TIPO found that Moncler submitted extensive evidence of trademark use in Taiwan starting from 2013, including the establishment of the first flagship store in Taipei 101, continuous media coverages such as GQ Taiwan, Marie Claire, Elle, Vogue, and TIPO’s prior determination finding “Moncler” a well-known trademark. Since there was no evidence supporting the use of the contested trademark, TIPO concluded that the relevant consumers should be more familiar with Moncler’s trademark.

5.        In view of the above, given the similarity between the trademarks, the overlap of the designated products, the distinctiveness and strong brand recognition among the relevant consumers, TIPO concluded that the registration of the contested trademark may create confusion with Moncler’s famous icon. The contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOlAMgVp%2FtMbOhd6tQNPSROZNDbhby3

How to Determine If A POSITA Would Be Motivated to Combine the Alleged Prior Arts?

 On November 18, 2025, Taiwan’s Intellectual Property and Commercial Court (“IPC Court”) rejected a patent infringement lawsuit based on TW patent M480526 (‘526 patent), finding all the asserted claims not patentable under the prior arts. (Case No. 113 Ming-Zhuan-Su-Zi No. 29)

The ‘526 patent, entitled “a waste bag frame apparatus”, is directed to an frame apparatus used to store and transport polluted clothing. More specifically, the patented apparatus used a pedal, connecting rods, and buffer rod to control the opening and closing of its upper cover. When stepping on the pedal, the upper cover of the apparatus will open, and, when releasing the pedal, the upper cover would descend slowly because of the restraint of the buffer rod. By controlling the closing of the upper cover, sudden impact, noise, or unnecessary injury may be avoided. 

Claim 1 of the ‘526 patent recites:

A waste bag frame apparatus, comprising:
a support frame (1) having a fixing rod (12) and a shaft rod (13) respectively transversely disposed at a position slightly above and at an upper end of a rear side of the support frame (1);
a bag frame (14) pivotally mounted on the shaft rod (13) ; and
an upper cover (2) having, on two rear sides thereof, ear portions (21) provided with shaft holes through which the shaft rod (13) is pivotally inserted; wherein the improvement comprises: buffer rods (3) respectively connected between positions slightly rearward of the shaft holes of the ear portions (21) on the two rear sides of the upper cover (2) and the fixing rod (12) disposed slightly above the support frame (1), such that the buffer rods (3) restrain the upper cover (2) and allow the upper cover (2) to descend slowly.

Claim 2 is a defendant claim, which further discloses a pedal that could swing upward and downward. 

The defendant argued that claim 1 and claim 2 of ‘526 patent are obvious in view of combination of prior arts, including TW Patent M451327 (‘327 patent), US 20070068942A1 patent (‘942 patent), and CN 2928727Y patent (‘’727 patent).

The IPC Court agreed, finding that although the ‘327 patent did not disclose “the buffer rods” which could “restrain the upper cover and allow the upper cover to descend slowly”, the ‘942 patent disclosed a dampening element (53) that could facilitate the smooth and controlled rotation of the lid. 

(‘327 patent)

(‘942 patent)

Similarly, the IPC Court found the ‘727 patent also disclosed a cylinder (5) that could serve as buffer to slow down the velocity when the cover (9) is closing. The Court concluded that a person of ordinary skill in the art could easily realize all the limitations of claim 1 and claim 2 of the ‘526 patent by referencing to the combination of the ‘327 and ‘942 patents, or the combination of the ‘327 and the ‘727 patents.    

                                                                        (‘727 patent)

The plaintiff contended that there was no motivation or teaching available for an ordinarily skilled artisan to combine the alleged prior arts. The IPC Court disagreed, elaborating that to evaluate whether a POSITA would be motivated to combine the alleged prior arts, the Court will look into factors such as the relatedness of the technological fields, the commonality of the problem to be solved, the commonality of function or purpose, and the teaching and suggestion. The more factors are present, the more likely a POSITA would be motivated to combine the relevant prior arts.

Here, the ‘942 patent explicitly taught that the dampening element could make the lid spin in a smooth and controlled fashion, which aims to solve the same problem as discussed in the ‘526 patent, i.e., providing a buffer rod to restrain and allow the cover to descend slowly. The garbage can disclosed in the ‘‘727 patent, like the one claimed in the ‘526 patent, also controlled the opening and closing of its cover via the mechanism of connecting rods. The ‘727 patent further revealed an air pressure buffer device to slow the closing of its cover. Hence, there is commonality of function and purpose between the ‘727 and the ‘526 patent. In sum, a POSITA would have sufficient motivation and suggestion to combine the alleged prior arts.

Given that the asserted patent was not patentable, the IPC Court rejected plaintiff’s patent infringement claims.

Source:  https://judgment.judicial.gov.tw/FILES/IPCV/113%2c%e6%b0%91%e5%b0%88%e8%a8%b4%2c29%2c20251118%2c2.pdf

Taiwan’s IP Office cancelled “BOS” for likelihood of confusion with “HUGO BOSS”

On October 27, 2025, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) ruled in the favor of Hugo Boss AG (“HB”), cancelling the contested trademark “BOS” over likelihood of confusion with the famous icon of the fashion brand (Reg. No. 00174072, 01552958, 01965218, and 02267311, see below).

The contested trademark, “BOS” (Reg. No. 02386355, see below), was filed on August 29, 2023, and granted on July 1, 2024. It covered services in Class 35, including advertisements, marketing, etc. HB filed opposition on September 30, 2024, citing violation of Articles 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

TIPO cancelled the contested trademark based on Article 30.1.10:

 

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 may raise confusion among the relevant consumers.

2.    TIPO noted that “BOSS” constituted the dominant portion of HB’s cited trademarks, and that both “BOS” and “BOSS” shared the same letters “BOS”. The lack of additional “S” in the contested trademark was only minor difference. TIPO considered “BOS” visually and verbally similar to HB’s “BOSS”.

3.    On the designated services, TIPO found HB’s cited trademarks covered similar services. For example, the No. 00174072 trademark covered services for market research, and marketing consultations; the No. 01552958 trademark covered services for online shopping and advertising; the No. 01965218 trademark covered market promotion, market analysis, and advertisement; and the No. 02267311 trademark covered marketing and distribution consultation, advertisement, and enterprise consultation and managements. TIPO considered these services overlapped with those designated by the contested trademark.

4.    Further, based on extensive evidence of trademark use throughout the past 40 years, HB’s “HUGO BOSS” and “BOSS” trademarks have become well-known in the field of perfume, apparel, and other fashionable accessories. As such, consumers in Taiwan shall be more familiar with HB’s “HUGO BOSS” and “BOSS”.

5.    In view of the similarity between “BOS” and “BOSS”, the overlap and relatedness of the designated services, and the strong brand recognition among the relevant consumers, TIPO considered the registration of “BOS” may create confusion with HB’s cited trademarks. Hence, the contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

 

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOlB8oTp%2Fsw4WvCMPtSe%2BpxOS2pAUY6