On September 30, 2026, Taiwan’s IP and Commercial
Court (“IPC Court”) entered a judgment in the favor of Human Made Inc. (“HMI”),
upholding the determination of Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) that the contested
trademark “Human Power” should be cancelled due to likelihood of confusion with
HMI’s “Human Made” trademark (Reg. No. 02277469, see below, hereafter “Human
Made”).
TIPO ruled in the favor of HMI on August 21, 2025, finding the contested trademark to be confusingly similar to HMI’s “Human Made”, and should be cancelled under Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act. After its subsequent appeal was denied by the Petitions and Appeals Committee of the MOEA (“Committee”), TH filed an administrative lawsuit before the IPC Court, seeking to vacate both TIPO’s and Committee’s unfavorable decisions.
The IPC Court did not side with TH,
reasoning that:
1.
The overall appearance and
design of “Human Made” and “Human Power” is similar to each other. Both feature
a heart icon with English letter “Human” embedded inside. The differences
between other letters, i.e., “Power” v.s. “Made”, and the decorative designs on
the upper right of the heart logo, should be minor and insufficient to make the
contested trademark distinct from HMI’s “Human Made” trademark.
2.
HMI’s “Human Made” trademark also
covered electric appliances in Class 9, such as cameras, projectors, PDA,
smartphones, video game consoles, etc. Such product categories are related to
the accessories registered by TH’s “Human Power”, which are complementary to
the use or function of products designated by HMI’s trademark.
3.
Additionally, HMI’s trademark
is distinctive, so that consumers would easily consider such logo an identifier
of source of goods or services. Given the similarity between the two
trademarks, the overlap of the registered product categories, and the distinctiveness
of HMI’s “Human Made” trademark, TIPO and the Committee did not err in finding
likelihood of confusion.
4.
TH argued that “Human” and
heart logo were common elements for trademark registered in Class 9, which should
carry little weight in the assessment of similarity. However, upon examination,
the IPC Court found those trademarks identified by TH were different from TH’s “Human
Power”. Hence, the IPC Court found TH’s arguments unpersuasive.
5.
TH further contended that the nature
of the registered products was different. There is no common manufacturer,
supplier, or sales channel between the two categories. To the contrary, the IPC
Court found products such as battery, chargers, electric wire and software are related
accessories or consumables for products like PDA, smartphone, and cameras. Consumers
would view them relevant or complementary to their use of products covered by
HMI’s trademark.
In view of the above, the IPC Court upheld
TIPO’s and Committee’s decisions, and dismissed TH’s complaint accordingly.
沒有留言:
張貼留言
注意：只有此網誌的成員可以留言。