Taiwan’s IP Office Cancelled “雪SERENE ALLURE” Over Confusion with Chanel’s “ALLURE” Trademark

On May 28, 2026, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) sided with fashion brand Chanel, finding the contested trademark “雪SERENE ALLURE” is confusingly similar to Chanel’s “ALLURE” and “ROUGE ALLURE” trademarks (Reg. No. 00625777, 00846557, and 02000565, see below). 

The contested trademark, “雪SERENE ALLURE” (Reg. No. 02470422, see below), was filed on December 20, 2024, and registered on August 1, 2025, covering products in Class 3, including cosmetics, perfume, skin care and sunscreen products. Chanel filed opposition on October 29, 2025, alleging that the registration of the contested trademark violated Articles 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

TIPO ruled in Chanel’s favor based on Article 30.1.10. In its determination made on May 28, 2026, TIPO found that:

1.        The contested trademark consists of Chinese character “雪”, a flower design, and English letters “SERENE ALLURE”. From the viewpoint of ordinary consumes, “ALLURE” would constitute both Chanel’s and the contested trademark’s dominant element, which renders the contested trademark similar to Chanel’s cited trademarks.

2.        The contested trademark covered cosmetics and skincare products, while Chanel’s “ALLURE” covered perfumes, essential oils, colognes, and hairspray. Both pertain to skincare, beauty, deodorant, and personal hygiene. Hence, the product categories overlap.

3.        Chanel’s “ALLURE” is highly distinctive, and has been recognized as well-known in the relevant consumers by TIPO’s prior determinations. Records of trademark use established that prior to the filing date of the contested trademark, Chanel has been using “ALLURE” in its fragrance and colognes products. To the contrast, there is no evidence supporting the actual use of the contested trademark. As a result, consumers should be more familiar with Chanel’s “ALLURE” trademark.

In view of the similarity between the trademarks, the overlap of product categories, and the strong brand recognition of Chanel’s “ALLURE”, TIPO concluded that the contested trademark may cause confusion with the well-known “ALLURE” trademark. The registration of the contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOhBc4dpfsr1bx1iPmp7ULzrvSDWJN3

General Electric Company Prevailed in Trademark Opposition for its Iconic “GE” Brand

On April 29, 2026, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) cancelled a trademark “泉科綠能G & device”, finding the contested trademark to be confusingly similar to General Electric Company‘s (“General Electric”) famous “GE” trademarks (e.g., Reg. No. 00001021, 00091183, 00553406, 00916541, 00124581, 00124595, 00124582, 01334183, and 01334187, see below).

The contested trademark, “泉科綠能G & device” (Reg. No. 02370628, see below), was filed on September 7, 2023, and registered on April 16, 2024, covering various kinds of service in Class 37, including construction of hydroelectric power plant, wind power plant, wave power plant, solar power plant, and geothermal power plant; mechanical installation, maintenance and repair; gas stations, vehicle charging stations, vehicle battery charging services, etc. General Electric filed trademark opposition on July 15, 2024, alleging that registration of the contested trademark violated Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

In its determination rendered on April 29, 2026, TIPO found the contested trademark shall be cancelled based on Article 30.1.11:

1.        Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act provides that a mark shall not be registered if such a mark is identical or similar to another’s well-known trademark, and hence may cause confusion among the relevant consumers, or harm the distinctiveness or reputation of such well-known trademark.

2.        On the issue of well-known status, TIPO observed that General Electric’s cited trademarks were registered in Taiwan as early as 1954, and have since been used in wide range of products and services, such as electrical products, computers, household appliances, medical equipments, engineering plastics, building materials, transportation machinery, engines, power plant construction, etc. General Electric also actively participated in various kinds of major industrial projects in Taiwan since 1950, including international airport, national highways, cycle power generation, and energy solution. Its iconic “GE” brand was recognized as one of the most valuable brands, and has been ranked among the 2000 worldwide leading enterprises by Forbes. Thus, TIPO affirmed that prior to the filing date of the contested trademark, “GE” trademarks had been well-known among the general public in Taiwan.  

3.        On the issue of similarity, while the contested trademark consists of an image of flame, the letter “G” with three horizontal lines, and the Chinese characters “泉科綠能”, TIPO particularly noted that the arrangement of the letter “G” and the three parallel lines bear similarity with English letters “GE”, which resembles General Electric’s “GE” icons. Indeed, the variation of lengths of the three horizontal lines resembles the English letter “E”. Therefore, TIPO concluded that the contested trademark is visually, phonetically, and conceptually similar to the “GE” icons.

4.        Given that General Electric’s “GE” icons are distinctive and have been used in Taiwan in various services and products for a very long time, TIPO agreed that the relevant consumers would be more familiar with General Electric’s “GE” brand. Further, the services covered by the contested trademark are related to energy and electricity, which overlap with the categories covered by General Electric’s trademarks. 

In view of the similarity between the two trademarks, the well-known status and strong brand recognition of General Electric’s “GE” brand, and the overlap of service categories, TIPO concluded that the contested trademark may cause confusion with the well-known “GE” trademarks. The registration of the contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

 

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOgB84drPtKF96n1WG%2BiuzGkAirhkXo

Apple Successfully Challenged “蘋果雞 APPLE FRIED CHICKEN & DEVICE” in Trademark Opposition

On April 28, 2026, Apple Inc. prevailed in trademark opposition against “蘋果雞 APPLE FRIED CHICKEN & DEVICE”, convincing the Taiwan IP Office (“TIPO”) that the contested trademark may cause confusion with the tech giant’s well-known “蘋果”, “APPLE”, and Apple logo (Reg. No. 00038248, 01457997, and 01620273, see below).

The contested trademark, “蘋果雞 APPLE FRIED CHICKEN & DEVICE” (Reg. No. 02399443, see below), was filed on November 2, 2023, and registered on September 1, 2024, covering services in Class 35, including food retail and wholesale, beverages retail and wholesale, business management assistance, marketing, consumer analysis for commercial or marketing purposes, marketing, online marketing, telephone marketing services, price comparison services, etc. Apple Inc. filed opposition on November 29, 2024, alleging that registration of the contested trademark violated Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act. 

TIPO sided with Apple Inc., cancelling the contested trademark based on Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

1.        Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act provides that a mark shall not be registered if such a mark is identical or similar to another’s well-known trademark, and hence may cause confusion among the relevant consumers, or damage the distinctiveness or reputation of such well-known trademark. 

2.        Based on evidence submitted by Apple Inc., including TIPO’s prior decisions, news reports on Forbes, Interbrand (No. 1 Best Global Brands 2014 - 2024), and BrandZ (No. 1 brand in 2022), and Apple Inc.’s continuous and extensive trademark use in its diversified products and services, TIPO affirmed that “蘋果”, “APPLE”, and the apple logo had been well-known before the application of the contested trademark.

3.        On similarity, TIPO noted that the contested trademark portrays a chicken’s head, crest, wing, and beak within the contour of an apple, together with Chinese characters “蘋果” (i.e., “apple” in Chinese), and “APPLE FRIED CHICKEN”. From the viewpoint of ordinary consumers, both Apple Inc.’s trademarks and the contested trademark feature “APPLE”, “蘋果”, and image of apple. As such, the contested trademark is visually, phonetically, and conceptually similar to Apple Inc.’s well-known trademarks. 

4.        While TIPO acknowledged that both trademarks are distinctive, the facts that Apple Inc.’s trademarks have been used in wide range of merchandise and services, such as stationery, Apple Café, snacks, apparel, handbags, and hats, tipped the scale to Apple Inc.’s favor. There is reasonable likelihood that Apple Inc. would expand its service territory to those designated by the contested trademark. Besides, from consumer’s perspective, Apple Inc.’s products, such as computers, software, smartphone, etc., may be distributed or promoted through the kind of services covered by the contested trademark (e.g., online marketing, price comparison services, etc.). The service designated by the contested trademark is related to the products covered by Apple Inc.’s well-known trademarks. 

5.        Further, given the well-known status, consumers are more familiar with Apple Inc.’s trademarks, which should be awarded with broader exclusivity.

In light of the above, given the well-known status of Apple Inc.’s trademarks, the similarity between the two trademarks, the relatedness between the designated services and Apple Inc.’s products, and Apple Inc.’s strong brand recognition among the relevant consumers, TIPO concluded that the contested trademark may cause confusion with Apple Inc.’s aforesaid well-known trademarks. The registration of the contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOgBMYdpPvpmKJhxtUfVCBBpJ6tBAMv