Beiersdorf AG’s opposition failed as Taiwan’s IP Office found “NIVEA” dissimilar to “ravea”

In an opposition filed by Beiersdorf AG (“Beiersdorf”) against the trademark “ravea”, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) found the contested trademark dissimilar to Beiersdorf’s well-known “NIVEA” marks (Reg. No. 00039212, 00384064, 01316235, 01790601, 01521516, 02252012, see below), and denied the opposition.

The contested trademark, “ravea” (Reg. No. 02397299, see below), was filed by Bourtex Inc. (“Bourtex”) on November 28, 2023, and registered on August 16, 2024. The trademark covered products in Class 3 (including facial creams, lotions, perfumes, cosmetics, and skincare products) and services in Class 35 (including retail service for cosmetics and facial masks). Beiersdorf filed opposition on November 15, 2024, alleging that registration of “ravea” violated Articles 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

On February 26, 2026, TIPO sided with Bourtex, finding the contested trademark not similar to “NIVEA” and would not cause confusion:

1.        First, on the well-known status of Beiersdorf’s “NIVEA” trademarks, TIPO agreed that records of products sales, marketing campaigns from 2021 to 2024 in major sales channels, TIPO’s prior determinations, and advertising materials have sufficiently demonstrated that “NIVEA” is well-known in the fields of cosmetics and sunscreen products.

2.        On similarity, while Beiersdorf argued that both trademarks consist of five letters, and share the ending “vea/VEA”, TIPO considered the overall impressions differ. The pronunciation of “ra” and “NI” is distinct, and the differences in font, color, and stylization further reduce similarity. As such, the degree of similarity is low.

3.        TIPO acknowledged that the product and service categories of the contested trademark overlapped with those covered by Beiersdorf’s “NIVEA”. For example, “NIVEA” also covered products like soap, essence oils, cosmetics, fragrances, sunscreen, and hair conditioners.

4.        TIPO further noted that both “ravea” and “NIVEA” have no ordinary meaning, so they are inherently distinctive. Although consumers should be more familiar with “NIVEA” due to its extensive use, there is no evidence of actual confusion. TIPO also noted the co-existence of similar marks, such as “Trivea”, “SALVEA”, “ALIVEA”, and “AVEA” in Class 3, and found no basis to infer bad faith from Bourtex’s use of “vea”.

5.        In view of the above, although “NIVEA” is well-known, based on the low similarity between the two trademarks, the co-existence of other trademarks with similar combination of “vea”, the absence of evidence of actual confusion and Bourtex’s bad faith, TIPO concluded that “ravea” would not cause confusion with the well-known “NIVEA”. Beiersdorf’s opposition was denied accordingly.

 

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOjAMkcpvvlx1OtwugokxsoG6Kazs2q