Giorgio Armani Successful in Trademark Opposition Against “EASDA”

On January 27, 2026, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) ruled in favor of the Italian brand Giorgio Armani (“Armani”) in a trademark opposition, finding the contested trademark was likely to cause confusion with Armani’s iconic “GA” logo (Reg. No. 02160471, see below).

The contested trademark, “EASDA & device” (Reg. No. 02418967, see below), was filed on May 21, 2024, and registered on December 1, 2024. The trademark covered various products in Class 18, including purses, backpacks, suitcases, handbags, etc. Armani filed an opposition on February 27, 2025, alleging that the contested trademark violated Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act. 

On January 27, 2026, TIPO sided with Armani based on Article 30.1.10, reasoning that:

1.        Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act prohibits the registration of a trademark if such a mark is identical or similar to another’s registered trademark, used for identical or similar goods or services, and hence may create confusion among the relevant consumers.

2.        The contested trademark features a circular design containing two stylized letters, “E” and “A”, and the word “EASDA” underneath. Armani’s “GA” logo, similarly, demonstrates a circular design with embedded letters “G” and “A”. While the specific letters differ, the overall visual impression of the contested trademark resembles Armani’s cited trademark. 

3.        On the designated products, both trademarks covered a variety of handbags, backpacks, and briefcases, which serve similar purposes and share the same trade channels. Hence, TIPO found a significant overlap in the designated goods. 

4.        Armani’s trademark is highly distinctive, and has established strong brand recognition in Taiwan. Supported by evidence including the sales records, catalogues, social media presence, and coverage on publications such as ELLE, VOGUE, and InStyle, TIPO opined that Taiwan’s consumers should be more familiar with Armani’s trademark.

Given that the contested trademark is similar to Armani’s “GA” logo, is registered for similar product category, and that consumers are more familiar with Armani’s cited logo, TIPO concluded that the registration of the contested trademark may create consumer confusion. Accordingly, the contested trademark was cancelled. 

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOiBMcWrfvbwYX72fm%2BQX5jozoNH6ck

Starbucks Prevailed in Opposition Proceeding Against “R/R” Trademark

 On January 22, 2026, Starbucks Corporation (“Starbucks”) successfully secured the cancellation of a trademark featuring “R/R”, convincing Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) that such trademark is confusingly similar to its iconic “Starbucks Reserve Star & R” logos (Reg. No. 01578229, 01902958, and 01458517, see below).

The contested trademark, “R/R” (Reg. No. 02437016, see below), was filed on March 18, 2024, and granted on February 16, 2025, designated for use in services in Class 43, including beverage shops, restaurants, tea houses, coffee shops, beer shops, bars, buffet restaurants, banquet catering services, etc. Starbucks filed an opposition on May 16, 2025, alleging that such registration violated Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

TIPO ruled in Starbucks’ favor on January 22, 2026 pursuant to Article 30.1.10, 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, to be used in identical or similar goods or services, hence would cause confusion among the relevant consumers.

2.        The contested trademark consists of two letters “R” separated by a horizontal line “—”, whereas Starbucks’ cited trademarks consist of a star logo, a horizontal line “—”, and the letter “R”. The horizontal line “—” and the letter “R” would constitute the dominant portion of both trademarks. The presence of the star logo in Starbucks’ trademarks is insufficient to negate the overall similarity based on visual, phonetical, and conceptual impressions.

3.        On the designated services, both trademarks cover food, beverage, and restaurant services. The service categories of the contested trademark overlap with those covered by Starbucks’ cited trademarks.

4.        Based on records of trademark use, Starbucks’ cited trademarks have established strong brand image among the consumers in the local market, including the expansion of stores, worldwide trademark registrations, products sales, advertising materials, media coverage in GQ, VOUE, Marie Claire, ELLE, and BAZAAR, and marketing campaigns throughout 2014 and 2020. To the contrast, there was insufficient evidence demonstrating actual use of the contested trademark. Hence, consumers should be more familiar with Starbucks’ cited trademarks.

In view of the above, given the similarity between the trademarks, the overlap of the designated services, and Starbucks’ strong brand recognition, TIPO concluded that the contested trademark may cause consumer confusion. The registration of the contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOiBcgXpfsiAoib%2FOnYPEX1CXWCiTvf

Taiwan’s IP Office Cancelled “nVEDA” In View of Confusion With “NIVEA”

On December 23, 2025, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) sided with BEIERSDORF AG (“BEIERSDORF”) in a trademark opposition proceeding, cancelling the contested trademark “nVEDA” in view of potential confusion with the well-known “NEVIA” (Reg. No.00039212, 00384064, 01316235, 01790601, 01521516, and 02252012, see below).

The contested trademark, “nVEDA” (Reg. No. 02377486, see below), was filed on July 10, 2023, and granted on May 16, 2024. The trademark covered goods in Class 3 (e.g., cosmetics, lipsticks, mouthwash, shampoo, skincare lotion, fragrances, etc.), and services in Class 44 (e.g., skin care, hairstyling, haircut, makeup, spas, hair salon, etc.). BEIERSDORF filed an opposition on August 8, 2024, alleging that registration of the contested trademark violated Articles 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

TIPO ruled in the favor of BEIERSDORF based on Article 30.1.10, reasoning that:

1.        The contested trademark comprised the stylized letters “nVEDA”, with the words “waxing & spa” in a smaller font. Since “waxing & spa” is descriptive for cosmetics and skin care services, consumers would focus primarily on “nVEDA”. Given that both “nVEDA” and “NIVEA” contain five letters, and share the same first and last letters, ordinary consumers would likely view “nVEDA” visually and phonetically similar to “NIVEA”.

2.        On the designated products and services, TIPO noted that “NIVEA” also covered products and services such as essential oils, perfumes, sunscreens, deodorants, cosmetics, and beauty care, which overlap with those designated by “nVEDA”.

3.        In terms of the brand recognition, TIPO observed that based on sales records, marketing materials, advertising, and TIPO’s and court’s prior rulings, BEIERSDORF’s “NIVEA” has become well-known in the cosmetics field. By contrast, there was no evidence supporting the actual use of “nEVDA”. Consumes are therefore more familiar with BEIERSDORF’s “NIVEA”.

In view of the similarity between the trademarks, the overlap in designated products, and the strong brand recognition of “NIVEA” in Taiwan, TIPO concluded that registration of “nVEDA” would create consumer confusion with “NIVEA”. The contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOqCMcWo%2Fs2XNhNTcwTgsNZiOS5w73X

Valentino’s Attempt to Cancel “Valentino Morris” Trademark Failed

On December 15, 2025, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) rejected a trademark opposition filed by Valentino S.p.A. (“Valentino”), finding the contested trademark dissimilar to Valentino’s cited trademarks (Reg. Nos. 00410686, 01900061, 01739965, and 00230396, see below).

The contested trademark, “Valentino Morris” (Reg. No. 02382298, see below), was filed on August 17, 2023, and granted on June 16, 2024, for use in goods in Class 25, covering a variety of clothing and accessories such as underwear, pajamas, suits, coats, swimsuits, shoes, neckties, socks, scarves, etc. Valentino filed an opposition on August 23, 2024, alleging violation of Articles 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

In its decision rendered on December 15, 2025, TIPO did not side with Valentino, finding that:

1.        Based on the submitted evidence and prior records, including magazine and news reports, product sales, store expansion, and prior court’s decisions, Valentino’s trademarks, particularly Reg. No. 00410686, 01739965, and 00230396, have been recognized as well-known in apparel, wallets, and the relevant accessories.

2.        As for similarity, the contested trademark consists of word “Valentino Morris” and a square device featuring the letters “V” and “M”. In contrast, Valentino’s cited marks include circular design with an embedded letter “V”. Although both parties’ trademarks contain the word “Valentino”, such word has been commonly adopted by other registrants. For example, “Morris Valentino and device” and “Valentino” have been registered by third parties as trademarks in Taiwan. Considering the differences in overall design and the combined wording “Valentino Morris”, ordinary consumers would view the contested trademark visually, conceptually, and phonetically different.

3.        While some of the designated product categories overlap, both the contested trademark and Valentino’s trademarks possess sufficient distinctiveness. Further, as noted above, there have been other co-existent trademarks featuring “Valentino” for similar product categories.

In view of the dissimilarity between the two trademarks, the distinctiveness of the contested trademark, and the co-existence of other “Valentino” trademarks, TIPO concluded that registration of the contested trademark would not cause consumer confusion, harm the reputation or dilute the distinctiveness of Valentino’s well-known trademarks. Valentino’s opposition was therefore denied accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOqCc0Wrfupopnb3RR57Nq9qSgVeV%2FO