Chanel Prevailed in Trademark Opposition Against “可萊媚LALLURE”

On December 31, 2025, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) ruled in favor of Chanel, cancelling “可萊媚LALLURE” on the ground that it was likely to cause confusion with the fashion brand’s famous “ALLURE” trademarks (Reg. No. 00625777 and 00846557, see below).

The contested trademark, “可萊媚LALLURE” (Reg. No. 02381231, see below), was filed by Liberty Stationery Corp. (“Liberty”) on September 4, 2023, and granted June 16, 2024. The contested trademark was designated for use in products in Class 3, including toner, lotion, makeup products, eyeshadow, shampoo, skin care cosmetics, skin care products, eyeliner, etc. Chanel filed opposition September 16, 2024, alleging violation of Articles 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

TIPO sided with Chanel on December 31, 2025, finding that the registration of the contested trademark violated 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 registered mark, designated for use in identical or similar goods or services, and hence there exists likelihood of confusion among the relevant consumers.

2.        On similarity, TIPO noted that while the contested trademark included Chinese characters “可萊媚” and a tree-leaf design, the eye-catching and stylized English elements “L’ALLURE” and “lallure” constituted one of its dominant features. When compared with Chanel’s cited trademarks “ALLURE”, ordinary consumers would perceive “L’ALLURE/lallure” as visually and conceptually similar to Chanel’s cited trademarks.  

3.        TIPO further observed that both Liberty’s contested trademark and Chanel’s cited trademarks covered cosmetics, personal hygiene, and beauty products. As such, the product category of Liberty’s contested trademark overlapped with those of Chanel’s “ALLURE” trademarks.

4.        Based on the supporting evidence, including Chanel’s official websites, media coverage, and TIPO’s prior determinations, Chanel’s “ALLURE” had built a strong brand reputation among the relevant consumers. By contrast, there was no evidence submitted by Liberty to support the use of the contested trademark. Hence, consumers should be more familiar with Chanel’s cited trademarks.

5.        In view of the similarity between the two trademarks, the overlap of designated product category, and the strong brand recognition among the relevant consumers, TIPO concluded that the registration of the contested trademark would create consumer confusion. The contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOrAMYXp%2FsIS9cJX4o54ukuHaExlial

Taiwan’s IP Office Sided with Mercedes-Benz in its Trademark Opposition Against Kurabe’s Logo

In a trademark opposition initiated by Mercedes-Benz (“Benz”), Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) ruled in favor of the German automotive giant, finding the contested trademark confusingly similar to Benz’s iconic three-pointed star logos (Reg. No. 01535350 and 01766128, see below).

The contested trademark (Reg. no. 02327415, see below) was filed by a Japanese company Kurabe Industrial Co. Ltd. (“Kurabe”) on December 19, 2022, and granted on October 1, 2023. Such trademark was designated for use in products in Class 9 (e.g., automotive electronic wiring, electrical conductors, copper wires, cables, PCBs, etc.), Class 11 (e.g., lighting devices for vehicles, lighting fixtures, vehicle ventilation systems, vehicle heaters, etc.), and Class 17 (e.g., insulators, cable insulators, insulating materials, etc.). Benz filed an opposition on December 28, 2023, alleging violations of Articles 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

On December 31, 2025, TIPO ruled in Benz’s favor based on Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act, finding that:

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, and is used in identical or similar products or services, thereby creating a likelihood of confusion among the relevant consumers.

2.        On similarity, the contested trademark consisted of three lightning-like elements extending upward, down-right, and down-left from the center, surrounded by two rings. TIPO noted that Benz’s logos similarly featured a star design extending in the same directions from the center and enclosed by a ring. Hence, Kurabe’s trademark was found to be visually similar to Benz’s trademarks.

3.        As to the designated products, TIPO observed that both Benz’s and Kurabe’s trademarks covered cables, wires, lighting devices, insulators, and the related accessories, which serve similar functions or purposes. Therefore, the designated products were considered similar. 

4.        Based on the sales records, news reports, and Benz’s official webpages, TIPO found that Benz’s cited trademarks had been well-known in the automotive field and related product market. By contrast, Kurabe’s evidence was insufficient to demonstrate product sales or extensive trademark use in Taiwan. TIPO was unable to determine if Kurabe’s trademark was also known to the relevant consumers. 

5.        Considering the similarity between the trademarks, the relatedness of product categories, and the strong brand recognition established by Benz, TIPO concluded that the registration of the contested trademark would likely cause confusion. Hence, Kurabe’s trademark was cancelled accordingly.

 

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOrA84drPvQUeCzDhBEO25bOqgslLS%2F

Tommy Hilfiger Prevails in Trademark Opposition Against “HbyFIGER”

 Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) ruled in the favor of Tommy Hilfiger Licensing B.V. (“Tommy Hilfiger”) in a trademark opposition proceeding, finding that the contested trademark “HbyFIGER” would likely cause confusion with Tommy Hilfiger’s iconic “TOMMY HILFIGER” trademarks (Reg. No. 00373193, 00770608, 00478393, 00478632, and 00770686, see below).

The contested trademark, “HbyFIGER” (Reg. No. 02357847, see below), was filed on July 28, 2023, and granted on February 16, 2024. The trademark covered products in Class 25, including sports shirts, clothing, kimonos, raincoats, shoes, ties, socks, shoes, scarves, etc. Tommy Hilfiger filed opposition on May 16, 2024, alleging violations of Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act. 

On November 27, 2025, TIPO ruled in the favor of Tommy Hilfiger, finding the contested trademark shall be cancelled 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 other’s registered trademark, and designated for use on identical or similar goods or services, thereby being likely to create confusion among the relevant consumers.

2.        On similarity, while the “TOMMY HILFIGER” trademark may also contain additional red, white, and blue design elements, TIPO noted that consumers would perceive “TOMMY HILFIGER” the dominant portion of the cited trademarks. Given that the “HILFIGER” in the cited trademarks and “HbyFIGER” both share the same beginning and ending letters, TIPO considered the contested trademark to be visually and phonetically similar to Tommy Hilfiger’s cited trademarks. The degree of similarity is intermediate.

3.        On the designated use of products, both trademarks covered similar product categories, such as clothing, shoes, and other accessories. TIPO therefore opined that the designated products overlap. 

4.        Based on extensive evidence submitted by Tommy Hilfiger, including the media coverages, news reports, and the operation of physical stores in Taipei 101, Breeze Center, Sogo, and Shin Kong Mitsukoshi, TIPO recognized that the cited “TOMMY HILFIGER” trademarks have established strong brand recognition in Taiwan. Hence, consumers shall be more familiar with the cited trademarks. 

5.        In view of the similarity between the two trademarks, the overlap of the designated products, and the distinctiveness and strong brand recognition of “TOMMY HILFIGER”, TIPO concluded that the registration of the contested trademark may cause confusion with the cited trademarks. The contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

 

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOqAscXrPs2imjJzcYrNjzPI454aONy

Chanel Prevails in Trademark Opposition Against “ECOCO”

In a trademark opposition initiated by Chanel, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) ruled in the favor of the fashion brand, cancelling the contested trademark for likelihood of confusion with Chanel’s well-known “COCO” trademarks (Reg. No. 00102776, 00438289, 01781763, 00624792, 00670814, and 00859991, see below).

The contested trademark, “ECOCO” (Reg. No. 02402941, see below), was filed on January 25, 2024 by Peng Mei International Co. Ltd. (“Peng Mei”), and granted on September 16, 2024. “ECOCO” was designated for use in services in Class 35, including advertising, SEO, marketing consulting, retail and wholesale of cosmetics, retail and wholesale of apparel and accessories, retail and wholesale of beauty tools, online shopping, etc. Chanel filed an opposition on December 16, 2024, alleging violation of Articles 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act. 

On November 25, 2025, TIPO ruled in favor of Chanel based on Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act, finding that:

1.        Chanel’s “COCO” trademarks have been well-known in Taiwan, supported by extensive and continuous evidence of trademark use, including advertisements in various magazines and news media, marketing events, exhibitions, and TIPO’s prior determinations. TIPO concluded that prior to the filing date of “ECOCO” trademark, Chanel’s “COCO” trademarks had already become famous in product categories such as perfumes, cosmetics, clothing, etc.

2.        Both “ECOCO” and “COCO” consisted of the letters of “COCO”, with a minor difference in the addition of the initial letter “E” in the contested trademark. From the perspective of ordinary consumers, “ECOCO” is verbally and visually similar to “COCO”.

3.        Even though “COCO” is a word with ordinary meaning, through Chanel’s long-standing and extensive use and marketing, the mark has acquired strong brand recognition among the relevant consumers. Taiwan’s consumers should be more familiar with Chanel’s “COCO”.

4.        While the contested trademark was not designated for cosmetics products, but rather for online shopping, advertising, marketing, and retails for cosmetics and beauty products, TIPO noted that these services are closely related to the sales and promotions of cosmetics, or are commonly used by ordinary consumers to search for or purchase such products. Hence, TIPO considered Peng Mei’s designated services to be related to Chanel’s designated perfumes, cosmetics, and apparel products. 

5.        In view of the well-known status and distinctiveness of “COCO”, the similarity between “ECOCO” and “COCO”, the strong brand recognition established by Chanel, and the relatedness between Peng Mei’s designated services and Chanel’s product categories, TIPO concluded that the registration of “ECOCO” would likely create confusion with Chanel’s “COCO” trademarks. Peng Mei’s “ECOCO” trademark was cancelled accordingly.

 

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOqA8cSrPtx7fxgaWBVEmoT2VUzKJ3T