On April 30, 2026, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) rejected a trademark opposition filed by Unilever Global IP Limited (“Unilever”), finding that the contested trademark “Purefit” would not cause confusion with Unilever’s “pureit by Unilever” (Reg. No. 02209729, hereafter “pureit”, see below)
In its decision on April 30, 2026, TIPO did not rule in Unilever’s favor. The reasons are as follows:
1. On similarity, although the word “pureit” occupies significant portion of Unilever’s trademark, TIPO noted that the additional presence of stylized “by Unilever” and the water drop icon reduce the degree of similarity between the two trademarks. Given the overall visual and phonetical differences, TIPO opined the degree of similarity should be intermediate.
2. On the designated products, Unilever argued that its trademark covered similar household appliances such as water dispensers, water filtration and purification devices, drinking water filters, and water purification appliances. TIPO found these products technically and functionally different from the air filtration products designated by Sharp’s contested trademark. The latter focuses on removing the dust, bacteria, and particles to improve air quality, while the former focuses on purification, filtration, or cooling of water. Additionally, the sales channels, targeted customers, and manufacturers of the two products do not necessarily overlap. TIPO thus considered the designated products of Sharp’s trademark dissimilar to Unilever’s.
3. Unilever alleged that “pureit” has become well-known, but TIPO found evidence submitted by Unilever, at best, proved that such trademark has been used in Taiwan. Without further evidence such as sales records, market shares, and products ranking, it is insufficient to show Unilever’s trademark has been well recognized by the relevant consumers.
4. On the strength and diversification of the trademark, TIPO found that before Unilever’s “pureit”, there were trademarks that also contained “pure” registered by others in the relevant product categories. Hence, ordinary consumers in Taiwan should be quite familiar with use of “pure” in conjunction with purification and filtration products.
5. Besides, Unilever submitted no records showing its expansion into air filtration and purification products. TIPO therefore posited that mere use of “pure” by Sharp is insufficient to prove its bad faith, and is less likely to cause confusion.
In view of the above, given the insufficient evidence to prove the well-known status, the difference of product categories, the lack of actual confusion and bad faith, TIPO concluded that mere intermediate degree of similarity would not render Sharp’s “Purefit” confusingly similar to Unilever’s “pureit by Unilever”. Unilever’s opposition was denied accordingly.
沒有留言:
張貼留言
注意：只有此網誌的成員可以留言。