PUMA SE’s Trademark Opposition for its PUMA Icon Fell Short

On April 30, 2026, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) denied a trademark opposition initiated by PUMA SE, finding that the contested trademark was insufficiently similar to PUMA SE’s icons to cause confusion (Reg. No. 00087447, 00088125, 00088132, 00094620, 00131605, 00131624, 00766352, 01391153, 01604881, and 02018202, see below).

The contested trademark, “CARLYLE with Specialty Badge” (Reg. No. 02477074, see below), was filed by Genuine Parts Company (“Genuine Parts”) on July 30, 2024, and registered on August 16, 2025, covering goods in Class 6, 7, 20, and 25. On November 10, 2025, PUMA SE filed an opposition against the Class 25 goods, including clothing, hats, gloves, shirts, and jackets, alleging that the contested trademark is confusingly similar to its PUMA trademarks, and should be cancelled based on Articles 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

TIPO did not rule in PUMA SE’s favor. In its determination on April 30, 2026, TIPO found that:

1.        Based on the extensive records of trademark use, PUMA SE’s cited trademarks, especially the “Jumping PUMA” and “PUMA and Jumping puma device” trademarks, had been well-known in the field of sneakers and apparel. As for PUMA SE’s “D with Jumping Cat Device” trademark, given that there was no corresponding evidence supporting its use, such trademark was not recognized as famous.

2.        On similarity, since felines are commonly seen animals, the differences in posture, movement, shape, stripes, and artistic style may create distinct visual impressions. Genuine Parts’ contested trademark mainly depicted a walking cat facing right, while PUMA SE’s trademarks mainly featured a jumping puma facing left. There are noticeable differences in movement direction, posture, body stripes, and tail design. Moreover, the inclusion of the text element “CARLYLE” further distinguishes the contested trademark from PUMA SE’s marks. Overall, the degree of similarity is low. 

3.        While the product category of the contested trademark partially overlaps with those of PUMA SE’s, the contested trademark is inherently distinctive. Additionally, for Class 25 product, TIPO noted that there are numerous registered trademarks also combining feline images with textual elements. The mere use of cat image in the contested trademark is insufficient to cause confusion with PUMA SE’s trademarks. Besides, there was no evidence of actual confusion or dilution submitted by PUMA SE.

4.        In conclusion, although PUMA SE’s “Jumping PUMA” and “PUMA” trademarks are well-known and there is partial overlap between the registered product categories, TIPO determined that the low degree of similarity, combined with the absence of evidence of actual confusion or dilution, and the inherent distinctiveness of the contested trademark, rendered confusion unlikely. PUMA SE’s opposition was denied accordingly.

Source:  

https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOgB8kRpfsuZc%2B%2BcLusadQ1tqcR%2FKET