POLO/Lauren Company L.P. Secured a Win in Opposition Against “NAPOLEON POLO” Trademark

On June 30, 2026, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) cancelled a contested trademark “NAPOLEON POLO & device”, finding such trademark may cause confusion with POLO/Lauren’s well-known “POLO” and “POLO Player symbol” trademarks (e.g., Reg. No. 00599583, No. 00069730, and No. 01737294, see below, hereafter together as “POLO” trademarks), even though the contested trademark was designated in other retail and wholesale services.

The contested trademark, “NAPOLEON POLO & device” (Reg. No. 02511681, see below), was filed on May 25, 2025, and registered on February 1, 2026. The mark covered services in Class 35, including retail and wholesale services for household goods, camping gears, maternity and infant products, and toys and stationery. POLO/Lauren filed opposition on May 4, 2026, alleging that the registration of the contested trademark violated Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

In its decision, TIPO sided with POLO/Lauren, 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 harm the distinctiveness or reputation of such well-known trademark.

2.        Based on the supporting evidence prepared by POLO/Lauren, including its records of trademark registrations, use of trademarks, sales records, advertising materials, and prior court decisions, TIPO agreed take prior to the filing of the contested trademark, the alleged POLO trademarks are well-known in the fields of apparel and the relevant retail services.

3.        On similarity, TIPO noted that both marks contain the word POLO, and feature a horse rider holding a long object. Since the word polo itself also means a sport where players compete by riding horses and carrying wooden hammers, consumers would consider the word “POLO” and the image of horse-riding knight to be the dominant elements of the contested trademark. In this sense, the contested trademark is visually and conceptually similar to the well-known POLO trademarks.

4.        TIPO further noted that although polo refers to a sport, it is still distinctive when being used as trademark for clothing. Besides, considering the evidence of decades of trademark use, and the brand’s successful expansion into luggages, cosmetics, stationery, toys, books, footwear, and retail and distributorship services, TIPO affirmed that consumers should be more familiar with the “POLO” trademarks.

5.        Although the contested trademark covered various retail and wholesale services, TIPO considered such categories to be related to the services or products designated by the POLO trademarks, such as retail services for apparel and its stationery and toys products, which weigh in the favor of finding likelihood of confusion

Given the well-known status of the POLO trademarks, the similarity between the marks, the diversification of POLO’s products, and the relatedness between the services categories, TIPO determined that the registration of the contested trademark may cause confusion with the “POLO” trademarks. As a result, “NAPOLEON POLO & device” was cancelled accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOmAscRoftqRegBDG48zqMGa8UsWsag 

Italian Brand “RELIFE” Wins Trademark Opposition Against “RENLIFE”

On May 29, 2026, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) cancelled a trademark “RENLIFE & device”, finding such trademark confusingly similar to the trademarks held by Italian cosmetic and beauty brand RELIFE S.R.L. (Reg. No. 01882282, 01882296, 02006661, 02037458, and 02037459, see below).

The contested trademark, “RENLIFE & device” (Reg. No. 02327480, see below), was filed by Renlife International Co. Ltd. on January 7, 2023, and registered on October 1, 2023. The contested trademark covered goods in Class 3 (e.g., lotion, cosmetics, skin care products, shampoo, soap, shower gel, essential oil, etc.), Class 5 (e.g., herbal medicine, diet pills, Chinese medicine, herbal tea, ointment, health care patch, nutritional supplement, etc.), Class 30, and Class 32; and services in Class 35 and Class 44. RELIFE S.R.L. filed opposition on December 29, 2023 against the registration for products in Class 3 and Class 5, alleging that the contested trademark violated Article 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

In its determination made on May 29, 2026, TIPO ruled in the favor of RELIFE S.R.L. under Article 30.1.10, finding the contested trademark would cause consumers’ confusion:

1.        TIPO observed that the contested trademark mainly consists of a “R” letter with green leaf design, and the word “Renlife”, while RELIFE S.R.L.’s trademarks mainly consist of a larger word “RELIFE”, and smaller word such as “MENARINI”, “MENARINI group”, “Relizema”, “PapiX”, and “NailX”. The dominant elements, therefore, should be “Renlife” and “RELIFE”. Given that “Renlife” and “RELIFE” both share the same initial letters and end with the letter “life”, the difference of “n” in the contested trademark is quite minor. TIPO thus found the contested trademark visually and orally similar to RELIFE S.R.L.’s cited trademarks.

2.        As to the designated products, TIPO noted that RELIFE S.R.L.’s trademarks also covered similar product categories, including soap, cosmetics, skin cleanser, sunscreen, medicine, skin agents, dermatitis drugs, dry skin treatment, medical oils, medicated tape, etc. Thus, the designated products of the contested trademark overlap with those covered by RELIFE S.R.L.’s trademarks. 

3.        TIPO further found RELIFE S.R.L.’s trademarks to be distinctive, and have been well recognized by the relevant consumers in Taiwan. Renlife International Co. Ltd. argued that it in fact only concentrates on Chinese medicine and traditional nutrition supplements, which are different from products of RELIFE S.R.L. TIPO disagreed, and explained that similarity of product should be determined based on items designated in the trademark registration, not on the products actually sold or manufactured by the trademark applicant.

4.        In view of the above, given the similarity between the trademarks, the overlap of product categories, and the brand reputation of RELIFE S.R.L.’s trademarks, TIPO considered the registration of the contested trademark may cause consumer confusion. “RENLIFE & device” was cancelled accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOhBcgcpfus7Je0bU2rK%2Bz9JAIDFNhN

Sloths in the trademark dispute: TIPO Dismisses "NAP TEA" Trademark Opposition Against “ Nonbiri Coffee Shop & Device”

 On May 21, 2026, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) dismissed a trademark opposition filed by Laying Down and Drinking Co., Ltd. against the trademark "Nonbiri Coffee Shop & Device," determining that there is no likelihood of confusion with the opposer's "NAP TEA", a sloth-themed trademarks (Reg. No. 02087358, see below).

The contested trademark, “Nonbiri Coffee Shop & Device” (Reg. No. 02403592, see below), was filed on October 12, 2023, and registered on September 16, 2024, covering services in Class 43, specifically hot and cold beverage shops, coffee shops, cafés, restaurants offering delivery services, restaurants offering takeout services, food and beverage services, catering services, and multi-concept restaurants. An opposition was filed on November 27, 2024, citing violations of Articles 30, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 10 of Taiwan’s Trademark Act.

On May 21, 2026, TIPO denied the opposition, reasoning that:

1.       Although both parties use a sloth as their design theme, their visual structures, postures, and specific features differ significantly. Further, the distinct textual elements, i.e., "Nonbiri Coffee Shop" in the contested mark, are dissimilar to the "NAP TEA" in the opposer's mark, which allows consumers to easily distinguish between them.

2.       On similarity of service, both marks target the same beverage and catering service markets, which generally increases the risk of consumer confusion if marks are similar.

3.       Evidence shows the opposer's marks have gained considerable reputation in the beverage shop market through extensive media coverage and store expansion. However, trademark search results show numerous prior registrations incorporating sloth designs for identical or similar catering services. Therefore, from consumer’s perspective, a generic sloth graphic possesses weak distinctiveness and does not connect exclusively to a single source.

4.       While the services are highly similar, the distinct visual designs and low similarity between the trademarks, combined with the low inherent distinctiveness of sloth graphics in the designated service sector, lead to the conclusion that ordinary consumers are unlikely to misidentify the services as originating from the same or an affiliated source.

In view of the above, TIPO concluded that the registration of the contested trademark does not violate Article 30, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 10 of the Trademark Act, and therefore denied the opposition against the contested trademark.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOhAMYTo%2FvG028w4nDXOMiWYr3AMGBU