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).
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.
沒有留言:
張貼留言
注意：只有此網誌的成員可以留言。