PUMA Prevailed in Trademark Opposition for Its Iconic Stripe Logos

In an opposition filed by PUMA SE (“PUMA”) against Wei Shen Shoes Co. Ltd. (“Wei Shen”), Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) found that Wei Shen’s contested trademark may cause confusion with PUMA’s stripe logos (Reg. No. 01781822 and 00087487, see below), and cancelled the contested trademark accordingly.

The contested trademark (Reg. No. 02422948, see below), was filed by Wei Shen on June 4, 2024, and registered on December 16, 2024. The mark covered products in Class 25, including shoes, cloth shoes, sandals, slippers, rain boots, leather shoes, sneakers, soles, and children’s shoes. PUMA filed an opposition on March 14, 2025, alleging that the registration of the contested trademark violated Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

On February 25, 2026, TIPO ruled in the favor of PUMA, finding that the contested trademark should be cancelled in view of 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 there exists a likelihood of confusion among the relevant consumers.

2.        On similarity, TIPO noted that both Wei Shen’s and PUMA’s logos form the impression of a curve line that becomes thicker from the right to the left, with the right end of the tip tilted slightly up. While the style of the dotted lines, the angle of the curve, and the color presented are different, TIPO opined that such differences would be minor given that the logos usually are placed on the side of the shoes, which is not easy for consumers to notice and distinguish. Hence, the contested trademark is visually similar to PUMA’s logos.

3.        On the designated products, TIPO found both trademarks cover similar shoes products. The targeted customers and sales channels of the two trademarks overlap.

4.        Further, based on the records of trademark use submitted by PUMA, including the records of worldwide trademark registrations, the products sales, celebrity’s endorsements, marketing materials, expansion of local stores, and sponsorship of sports events, TIPO agreed that PUMA’s logos are distinctive and have established strong brand recognition. Consumers should be more familiar with PUMA’s logos, which should warrant broader scope of exclusivity.

In view of the similarity between the two trademarks, the overlap of product category, and the fact that PUMA’s logos are distinctive and have established strong brand recognition, TIPO concluded that the contested trademark may cause consumer’s confusion. Wei Shen’s contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOjAM0Rp%2FsJ2QqYXU%2Fq%2B5BQUc6PqWug