Bandai Prevailed in Trademark Opposition for Its “GASHAPON” Mark

On January 29, 2026, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) ruled in favor of Bandai Co. Ltd. (“Bandai”), cancelling the contested trademark due to the similarity with Bandai’s iconic “GASHAPON” trademark (Reg. No. 02181227, see below).

The contested trademark, “蛋樂寶COFFEE & GASHAPON & device” (Reg. No. 02229259, see below), was filed on June 28, 2021, and registered on June 16, 2022, designated for use in Class 35 services, including retail and wholesale of household daily necessities, online shopping, shopping malls, convenience stores, department stores, export and import agency services, grocery stores, etc. Bandai filed an opposition on September 14, 2022, alleging that registration of the contested trademark violated Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

TIPO found in favor of Bandai based on Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act. In its decision, TIPO held that:

1.        The contested trademark consists of the Chinese words “蛋樂寶”, the English words “COFFEE & GASHAPON”, and a design depicting a capsule toy vending machine. Since both Bandai’s trademark and the contested trademark contain the word “GASHAPON”, there is verbal and conceptual similarity. Besides, as Bandai has been famous for its capsule toys, the design of a capsule toy vending machine in the contested trademark may further enhance the association with Bandai’s “GASHAPON” trademark. Hence, the contested trademark was found similar to Bandai’s “GASHAPON” trademark.

2.        Based on the registered service categories, both trademarks relate to retail activities involving daily household goods. Additionally, according to the evidence submitted by Bandai, the contested trademark has been used in advertising toys, capsule toys, and collectible figures, which overlap with Bandai’s business.

3.        In view of the extensive evidence submitted by Bandai, including the news reports from DIG JAPAN!, GirlStyle, Japan Walker, and Toy Journal; the records of product sales and market share; and the trademark registrations in U.S., Japan, China, Hong Kong, Vietnam, and Korea, Bandai has established strong brand image for its “GASHAPON”. Consumers are more familiar with Bandai’s trademark, which should be awarded with broader scope of protection.

Based on the above, given the similarity between the two trademarks, the overlap of services categories, and the strong brand image of Bandai’s “GASHAPON”, TIPO concluded that the contested trademark may create confusion. As such, registration of the contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOiB8oSo%2FtvA4eCQuftWhOvnl%2BytQtW

Giorgio Armani Successful in Trademark Opposition Against “EASDA”

On January 27, 2026, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) ruled in favor of the Italian brand Giorgio Armani (“Armani”) in a trademark opposition, finding the contested trademark was likely to cause confusion with Armani’s iconic “GA” logo (Reg. No. 02160471, see below).

The contested trademark, “EASDA & device” (Reg. No. 02418967, see below), was filed on May 21, 2024, and registered on December 1, 2024. The trademark covered various products in Class 18, including purses, backpacks, suitcases, handbags, etc. Armani filed an opposition on February 27, 2025, alleging that the contested trademark violated Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act. 

On January 27, 2026, TIPO sided with Armani based on Article 30.1.10, reasoning that:

1.        Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act prohibits the registration of a trademark if such a mark is identical or similar to another’s registered trademark, used for identical or similar goods or services, and hence may create confusion among the relevant consumers.

2.        The contested trademark features a circular design containing two stylized letters, “E” and “A”, and the word “EASDA” underneath. Armani’s “GA” logo, similarly, demonstrates a circular design with embedded letters “G” and “A”. While the specific letters differ, the overall visual impression of the contested trademark resembles Armani’s cited trademark. 

3.        On the designated products, both trademarks covered a variety of handbags, backpacks, and briefcases, which serve similar purposes and share the same trade channels. Hence, TIPO found a significant overlap in the designated goods. 

4.        Armani’s trademark is highly distinctive, and has established strong brand recognition in Taiwan. Supported by evidence including the sales records, catalogues, social media presence, and coverage on publications such as ELLE, VOGUE, and InStyle, TIPO opined that Taiwan’s consumers should be more familiar with Armani’s trademark.

Given that the contested trademark is similar to Armani’s “GA” logo, is registered for similar product category, and that consumers are more familiar with Armani’s cited logo, TIPO concluded that the registration of the contested trademark may create consumer confusion. Accordingly, the contested trademark was cancelled. 

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOiBMcWrfvbwYX72fm%2BQX5jozoNH6ck

Starbucks Prevailed in Opposition Proceeding Against “R/R” Trademark

 On January 22, 2026, Starbucks Corporation (“Starbucks”) successfully secured the cancellation of a trademark featuring “R/R”, convincing Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) that such trademark is confusingly similar to its iconic “Starbucks Reserve Star & R” logos (Reg. No. 01578229, 01902958, and 01458517, see below).

The contested trademark, “R/R” (Reg. No. 02437016, see below), was filed on March 18, 2024, and granted on February 16, 2025, designated for use in services in Class 43, including beverage shops, restaurants, tea houses, coffee shops, beer shops, bars, buffet restaurants, banquet catering services, etc. Starbucks filed an opposition on May 16, 2025, alleging that such registration violated Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

TIPO ruled in Starbucks’ favor on January 22, 2026 pursuant to Article 30.1.10, finding that:

1.        Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act provides that a mark shall not be registered if such a mark is identical or similar to another’s registered trademark, to be used in identical or similar goods or services, hence would cause confusion among the relevant consumers.

2.        The contested trademark consists of two letters “R” separated by a horizontal line “—”, whereas Starbucks’ cited trademarks consist of a star logo, a horizontal line “—”, and the letter “R”. The horizontal line “—” and the letter “R” would constitute the dominant portion of both trademarks. The presence of the star logo in Starbucks’ trademarks is insufficient to negate the overall similarity based on visual, phonetical, and conceptual impressions.

3.        On the designated services, both trademarks cover food, beverage, and restaurant services. The service categories of the contested trademark overlap with those covered by Starbucks’ cited trademarks.

4.        Based on records of trademark use, Starbucks’ cited trademarks have established strong brand image among the consumers in the local market, including the expansion of stores, worldwide trademark registrations, products sales, advertising materials, media coverage in GQ, VOUE, Marie Claire, ELLE, and BAZAAR, and marketing campaigns throughout 2014 and 2020. To the contrast, there was insufficient evidence demonstrating actual use of the contested trademark. Hence, consumers should be more familiar with Starbucks’ cited trademarks.

In view of the above, given the similarity between the trademarks, the overlap of the designated services, and Starbucks’ strong brand recognition, TIPO concluded that the contested trademark may cause consumer confusion. The registration of the contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOiBcgXpfsiAoib%2FOnYPEX1CXWCiTvf

Taiwan’s IP Office Cancelled “nVEDA” In View of Confusion With “NIVEA”

On December 23, 2025, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) sided with BEIERSDORF AG (“BEIERSDORF”) in a trademark opposition proceeding, cancelling the contested trademark “nVEDA” in view of potential confusion with the well-known “NEVIA” (Reg. No.00039212, 00384064, 01316235, 01790601, 01521516, and 02252012, see below).

The contested trademark, “nVEDA” (Reg. No. 02377486, see below), was filed on July 10, 2023, and granted on May 16, 2024. The trademark covered goods in Class 3 (e.g., cosmetics, lipsticks, mouthwash, shampoo, skincare lotion, fragrances, etc.), and services in Class 44 (e.g., skin care, hairstyling, haircut, makeup, spas, hair salon, etc.). BEIERSDORF filed an opposition on August 8, 2024, alleging that registration of the contested trademark violated Articles 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

TIPO ruled in the favor of BEIERSDORF based on Article 30.1.10, reasoning that:

1.        The contested trademark comprised the stylized letters “nVEDA”, with the words “waxing & spa” in a smaller font. Since “waxing & spa” is descriptive for cosmetics and skin care services, consumers would focus primarily on “nVEDA”. Given that both “nVEDA” and “NIVEA” contain five letters, and share the same first and last letters, ordinary consumers would likely view “nVEDA” visually and phonetically similar to “NIVEA”.

2.        On the designated products and services, TIPO noted that “NIVEA” also covered products and services such as essential oils, perfumes, sunscreens, deodorants, cosmetics, and beauty care, which overlap with those designated by “nVEDA”.

3.        In terms of the brand recognition, TIPO observed that based on sales records, marketing materials, advertising, and TIPO’s and court’s prior rulings, BEIERSDORF’s “NIVEA” has become well-known in the cosmetics field. By contrast, there was no evidence supporting the actual use of “nEVDA”. Consumes are therefore more familiar with BEIERSDORF’s “NIVEA”.

In view of the similarity between the trademarks, the overlap in designated products, and the strong brand recognition of “NIVEA” in Taiwan, TIPO concluded that registration of “nVEDA” would create consumer confusion with “NIVEA”. The contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOqCMcWo%2Fs2XNhNTcwTgsNZiOS5w73X

Valentino’s Attempt to Cancel “Valentino Morris” Trademark Failed

On December 15, 2025, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) rejected a trademark opposition filed by Valentino S.p.A. (“Valentino”), finding the contested trademark dissimilar to Valentino’s cited trademarks (Reg. Nos. 00410686, 01900061, 01739965, and 00230396, see below).

The contested trademark, “Valentino Morris” (Reg. No. 02382298, see below), was filed on August 17, 2023, and granted on June 16, 2024, for use in goods in Class 25, covering a variety of clothing and accessories such as underwear, pajamas, suits, coats, swimsuits, shoes, neckties, socks, scarves, etc. Valentino filed an opposition on August 23, 2024, alleging violation of Articles 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

In its decision rendered on December 15, 2025, TIPO did not side with Valentino, finding that:

1.        Based on the submitted evidence and prior records, including magazine and news reports, product sales, store expansion, and prior court’s decisions, Valentino’s trademarks, particularly Reg. No. 00410686, 01739965, and 00230396, have been recognized as well-known in apparel, wallets, and the relevant accessories.

2.        As for similarity, the contested trademark consists of word “Valentino Morris” and a square device featuring the letters “V” and “M”. In contrast, Valentino’s cited marks include circular design with an embedded letter “V”. Although both parties’ trademarks contain the word “Valentino”, such word has been commonly adopted by other registrants. For example, “Morris Valentino and device” and “Valentino” have been registered by third parties as trademarks in Taiwan. Considering the differences in overall design and the combined wording “Valentino Morris”, ordinary consumers would view the contested trademark visually, conceptually, and phonetically different.

3.        While some of the designated product categories overlap, both the contested trademark and Valentino’s trademarks possess sufficient distinctiveness. Further, as noted above, there have been other co-existent trademarks featuring “Valentino” for similar product categories.

In view of the dissimilarity between the two trademarks, the distinctiveness of the contested trademark, and the co-existence of other “Valentino” trademarks, TIPO concluded that registration of the contested trademark would not cause consumer confusion, harm the reputation or dilute the distinctiveness of Valentino’s well-known trademarks. Valentino’s opposition was therefore denied accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOqCc0Wrfupopnb3RR57Nq9qSgVeV%2FO

Ford Came Out on Top in Trademark Opposition for Its Classic Pony Logo

On January 2, 2026, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) cancelled the trademark “Hipuller & device”, finding such trademark confusingly similar to Ford’s iconic pony logo (Reg. No. 02208164, see below).

The contested trademark, “Hipuller & device” (Reg. No. 02411234, see below), was filed by Kangfu International Hardware Co. Ltd. (“Kangfu”) on January 26, 2024, and granted on November 1, 2024. The contested trademark covered various tools in Class 8, including hand tools, wrenches, cutters, wire clamps, stripping tools, wire tensioners, etc. Ford filed opposition on January 23, 2025, alleging that the contested trademark violated Articles 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

On January 2, 2026, TIPO ruled in favor of Ford, 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 it is identical or similar to another’s well-known trademark, and is likely to cause confusion among the relevant consumers, or dilute the distinctiveness of the well-known trademark.

2.        Based on records submitted by Ford, including decades of use of pony logo in its Mustang series, news reports by local media (such as U-Car, CARTURE, BusinessNext, Yahoo, HIGHMOTOR, and GOChoice), and its strong distributorship in Taiwan market, TIPO found that prior to the filing date of the contested trademark, Ford’s pony logo was already well-known among the relevant consumers.

3.        On similarity, TIPO observed that although the contested trademark featured the word “Hipuller” above the design of a running horse, the horse design in both trademarks constituted the dominant portion, with highly similar contours, mane style, and running posture. As such, ordinary consumers would consider the contested trademark visually and conceptually similar to Ford’s pony logo.

4.        On the strength of the trademark, TIPO noted that the pony logo is not a commonly used symbol, and that it has been famous due to Ford’s extensive use in Taiwan. Given that Kangfu did not submit any evidence to support the actual use of the contested trademark, TIPO opined that the consumers would be more familiar with Ford’s pony logo.

5.        Moreover, hand tools, such as wrenches, may be used in automobile maintenance and repair. Consumers therefore may consider the designated products of the contested trademark as related to Ford’s automotive products.

In light of the well-known status of Ford’s pony logo, the similarity between the two trademarks, the strong brand recognition among the relevant consumers, and the relatedness between the designated products, TIPO concluded that the the contested trademark may create confusion with Ford’s famous pony logo. The registration of the contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.  

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNQI%2BOiAc4SrPviu58MT1xadF8iUsNrxGt1

Chanel Prevailed in Trademark Opposition Against “可萊媚LALLURE”

On December 31, 2025, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) ruled in favor of Chanel, cancelling “可萊媚LALLURE” on the ground that it was likely to cause confusion with the fashion brand’s famous “ALLURE” trademarks (Reg. No. 00625777 and 00846557, see below).

The contested trademark, “可萊媚LALLURE” (Reg. No. 02381231, see below), was filed by Liberty Stationery Corp. (“Liberty”) on September 4, 2023, and granted June 16, 2024. The contested trademark was designated for use in products in Class 3, including toner, lotion, makeup products, eyeshadow, shampoo, skin care cosmetics, skin care products, eyeliner, etc. Chanel filed opposition September 16, 2024, alleging violation of Articles 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

TIPO sided with Chanel on December 31, 2025, finding that the registration of the contested trademark violated Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act:

1.        Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act provides that a mark shall not be registered if such a mark is identical or similar to another registered mark, designated for use in identical or similar goods or services, and hence there exists likelihood of confusion among the relevant consumers.

2.        On similarity, TIPO noted that while the contested trademark included Chinese characters “可萊媚” and a tree-leaf design, the eye-catching and stylized English elements “L’ALLURE” and “lallure” constituted one of its dominant features. When compared with Chanel’s cited trademarks “ALLURE”, ordinary consumers would perceive “L’ALLURE/lallure” as visually and conceptually similar to Chanel’s cited trademarks.  

3.        TIPO further observed that both Liberty’s contested trademark and Chanel’s cited trademarks covered cosmetics, personal hygiene, and beauty products. As such, the product category of Liberty’s contested trademark overlapped with those of Chanel’s “ALLURE” trademarks.

4.        Based on the supporting evidence, including Chanel’s official websites, media coverage, and TIPO’s prior determinations, Chanel’s “ALLURE” had built a strong brand reputation among the relevant consumers. By contrast, there was no evidence submitted by Liberty to support the use of the contested trademark. Hence, consumers should be more familiar with Chanel’s cited trademarks.

5.        In view of the similarity between the two trademarks, the overlap of designated product category, and the strong brand recognition among the relevant consumers, TIPO concluded that the registration of the contested trademark would create consumer confusion. The contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOrAMYXp%2FsIS9cJX4o54ukuHaExlial

Taiwan’s IP Office Sided with Mercedes-Benz in its Trademark Opposition Against Kurabe’s Logo

In a trademark opposition initiated by Mercedes-Benz (“Benz”), Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) ruled in favor of the German automotive giant, finding the contested trademark confusingly similar to Benz’s iconic three-pointed star logos (Reg. No. 01535350 and 01766128, see below).

The contested trademark (Reg. no. 02327415, see below) was filed by a Japanese company Kurabe Industrial Co. Ltd. (“Kurabe”) on December 19, 2022, and granted on October 1, 2023. Such trademark was designated for use in products in Class 9 (e.g., automotive electronic wiring, electrical conductors, copper wires, cables, PCBs, etc.), Class 11 (e.g., lighting devices for vehicles, lighting fixtures, vehicle ventilation systems, vehicle heaters, etc.), and Class 17 (e.g., insulators, cable insulators, insulating materials, etc.). Benz filed an opposition on December 28, 2023, alleging violations of Articles 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

On December 31, 2025, TIPO ruled in Benz’s favor based on Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act, finding that:

1.        Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act provides that a mark shall not be registered if such a mark is identical or similar to another’s registered trademark, and is used in identical or similar products or services, thereby creating a likelihood of confusion among the relevant consumers.

2.        On similarity, the contested trademark consisted of three lightning-like elements extending upward, down-right, and down-left from the center, surrounded by two rings. TIPO noted that Benz’s logos similarly featured a star design extending in the same directions from the center and enclosed by a ring. Hence, Kurabe’s trademark was found to be visually similar to Benz’s trademarks.

3.        As to the designated products, TIPO observed that both Benz’s and Kurabe’s trademarks covered cables, wires, lighting devices, insulators, and the related accessories, which serve similar functions or purposes. Therefore, the designated products were considered similar. 

4.        Based on the sales records, news reports, and Benz’s official webpages, TIPO found that Benz’s cited trademarks had been well-known in the automotive field and related product market. By contrast, Kurabe’s evidence was insufficient to demonstrate product sales or extensive trademark use in Taiwan. TIPO was unable to determine if Kurabe’s trademark was also known to the relevant consumers. 

5.        Considering the similarity between the trademarks, the relatedness of product categories, and the strong brand recognition established by Benz, TIPO concluded that the registration of the contested trademark would likely cause confusion. Hence, Kurabe’s trademark was cancelled accordingly.

 

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOrA84drPvQUeCzDhBEO25bOqgslLS%2F

Tommy Hilfiger Prevails in Trademark Opposition Against “HbyFIGER”

 Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) ruled in the favor of Tommy Hilfiger Licensing B.V. (“Tommy Hilfiger”) in a trademark opposition proceeding, finding that the contested trademark “HbyFIGER” would likely cause confusion with Tommy Hilfiger’s iconic “TOMMY HILFIGER” trademarks (Reg. No. 00373193, 00770608, 00478393, 00478632, and 00770686, see below).

The contested trademark, “HbyFIGER” (Reg. No. 02357847, see below), was filed on July 28, 2023, and granted on February 16, 2024. The trademark covered products in Class 25, including sports shirts, clothing, kimonos, raincoats, shoes, ties, socks, shoes, scarves, etc. Tommy Hilfiger filed opposition on May 16, 2024, alleging violations of Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act. 

On November 27, 2025, TIPO ruled in the favor of Tommy Hilfiger, finding the contested trademark shall be cancelled based on Article 30.1.10:

1.        Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act provides that a mark shall not be registered if such a mark is identical or similar to other’s registered trademark, and designated for use on identical or similar goods or services, thereby being likely to create confusion among the relevant consumers.

2.        On similarity, while the “TOMMY HILFIGER” trademark may also contain additional red, white, and blue design elements, TIPO noted that consumers would perceive “TOMMY HILFIGER” the dominant portion of the cited trademarks. Given that the “HILFIGER” in the cited trademarks and “HbyFIGER” both share the same beginning and ending letters, TIPO considered the contested trademark to be visually and phonetically similar to Tommy Hilfiger’s cited trademarks. The degree of similarity is intermediate.

3.        On the designated use of products, both trademarks covered similar product categories, such as clothing, shoes, and other accessories. TIPO therefore opined that the designated products overlap. 

4.        Based on extensive evidence submitted by Tommy Hilfiger, including the media coverages, news reports, and the operation of physical stores in Taipei 101, Breeze Center, Sogo, and Shin Kong Mitsukoshi, TIPO recognized that the cited “TOMMY HILFIGER” trademarks have established strong brand recognition in Taiwan. Hence, consumers shall be more familiar with the cited trademarks. 

5.        In view of the similarity between the two trademarks, the overlap of the designated products, and the distinctiveness and strong brand recognition of “TOMMY HILFIGER”, TIPO concluded that the registration of the contested trademark may cause confusion with the cited trademarks. The contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

 

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOqAscXrPs2imjJzcYrNjzPI454aONy