On February 12, 2026, Spanish brand S. TOUS S.L. (“TOUS”) prevailed in its trademark opposition against the contested trademark “40 & device”, convincing Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) that the contested trademark may create confusion with TOUS’s popular “Tous Bear” icon (Reg. No. 01146016, see below).
TIPO ruled in TOUS’s favor based on Article 30.1.10, reasoning that:
1. Both trademarks depict a bear in circular shape. The contested trademark places a number “40” in the center, while TOUS’s trademark contains three dots that represent the bear’s eyes and nose. Since both trademarks are registered for use in jewelry and luxury, which are typically small in size, the aforesaid differences may be too minor for the consumers to notice during the purchasing process. In other words, the bear contour constitutes the dominant element, and consumers of ordinary degree of care would consider both trademarks conceptually and visually similar.
2. On the issue of designated products, both trademarks cover precious metal ornaments, such as rings, bracelets, necklaces, watches, and jewelry. As such, the designated products of the two trademarks overlap.
3. While both trademarks are distinctive, evidence of trademark use shows that TOUS’s trademark has established strong recognition in Taiwan. For example, the record includes continuous media coverage between 2009 and 2022 across internet platforms, blogs, and forums, and the appointment of the sales agent in Taiwan. Hence, consumers should be more familiar with TOUS’s trademark.
4. Further, both trademarks are actually used on earrings, rings, and small ornaments that incorporate a bear-shaped contour. Because these products usually are small in size and often feature similar color designs, ordinary consumers may find it difficult to distinguish the differences in the bears’ facial details.
In view of the above, given the similarity between the trademarks, the overlap of the designated product category, TOUS’s strong brand recognition, and likelihood of consumer confusion, TIPO concluded that the contested trademark violated Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act. The registration of the contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.
沒有留言:
張貼留言
注意：只有此網誌的成員可以留言。