Moncler Secured a Win in Trademark Opposition against “MONQUX”

Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) sided with Italian brand Moncler in its trademark opposition against “MONQUX”, finding the contested trademark would cause confusion with its classic icon “MONCLER & device” (Reg. No. 01429876, see below).

The contested trademark, “MONQUX & device” (Reg. No. 02369647, see below), was filed on September 19, 2023, and granted on April 16, 2024, designated for use in Class 25, including vests, pants, jackets, T-shirts, scarfs, neckties, raincoats, clothes, etc. Moncler filed opposition on July 16, 2024, alleging violation of Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

On October 1, 2025, TIPO ruled in favor of Moncler based on 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’s registered trademark, to be used in identical or similar products or services, and hence may create confusion among the relevant consumers.

2.        TIPO firstly noted that both trademarks consisted of a stylized and eye-catching letter “M” embedded in a circle in the upper half, and letters spread out evenly along the side of the circle in the lower half. From the viewpoint of visual and oral impression, both trademarks demonstrated similar arrangement and overall structure, and shared the same initial letters “MON”. TIPO therefore considered there is similarity between the two trademarks.

3.        As to the designated products, Moncler’s trademark was also registered for apparel such as menswear, jacket, shirts, T-shirts, coats, suits, raincoats, swimsuits, etc., which are related to clothing and overlap with those designated by the contested trademark. 

4.        While both trademarks were distinctive, TIPO found that Moncler submitted extensive evidence of trademark use in Taiwan starting from 2013, including the establishment of the first flagship store in Taipei 101, continuous media coverages such as GQ Taiwan, Marie Claire, Elle, Vogue, and TIPO’s prior determination finding “Moncler” a well-known trademark. Since there was no evidence supporting the use of the contested trademark, TIPO concluded that the relevant consumers should be more familiar with Moncler’s trademark.

5.        In view of the above, given the similarity between the trademarks, the overlap of the designated products, the distinctiveness and strong brand recognition among the relevant consumers, TIPO concluded that the registration of the contested trademark may create confusion with Moncler’s famous icon. The contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOlAMgVp%2FtMbOhd6tQNPSROZNDbhby3

How to Determine If A POSITA Would Be Motivated to Combine the Alleged Prior Arts?

 On November 18, 2025, Taiwan’s Intellectual Property and Commercial Court (“IPC Court”) rejected a patent infringement lawsuit based on TW patent M480526 (‘526 patent), finding all the asserted claims not patentable under the prior arts. (Case No. 113 Ming-Zhuan-Su-Zi No. 29)

The ‘526 patent, entitled “a waste bag frame apparatus”, is directed to an frame apparatus used to store and transport polluted clothing. More specifically, the patented apparatus used a pedal, connecting rods, and buffer rod to control the opening and closing of its upper cover. When stepping on the pedal, the upper cover of the apparatus will open, and, when releasing the pedal, the upper cover would descend slowly because of the restraint of the buffer rod. By controlling the closing of the upper cover, sudden impact, noise, or unnecessary injury may be avoided. 

Claim 1 of the ‘526 patent recites:

A waste bag frame apparatus, comprising:
a support frame (1) having a fixing rod (12) and a shaft rod (13) respectively transversely disposed at a position slightly above and at an upper end of a rear side of the support frame (1);
a bag frame (14) pivotally mounted on the shaft rod (13) ; and
an upper cover (2) having, on two rear sides thereof, ear portions (21) provided with shaft holes through which the shaft rod (13) is pivotally inserted; wherein the improvement comprises: buffer rods (3) respectively connected between positions slightly rearward of the shaft holes of the ear portions (21) on the two rear sides of the upper cover (2) and the fixing rod (12) disposed slightly above the support frame (1), such that the buffer rods (3) restrain the upper cover (2) and allow the upper cover (2) to descend slowly.

Claim 2 is a defendant claim, which further discloses a pedal that could swing upward and downward. 

The defendant argued that claim 1 and claim 2 of ‘526 patent are obvious in view of combination of prior arts, including TW Patent M451327 (‘327 patent), US 20070068942A1 patent (‘942 patent), and CN 2928727Y patent (‘’727 patent).

The IPC Court agreed, finding that although the ‘327 patent did not disclose “the buffer rods” which could “restrain the upper cover and allow the upper cover to descend slowly”, the ‘942 patent disclosed a dampening element (53) that could facilitate the smooth and controlled rotation of the lid. 

(‘327 patent)

(‘942 patent)

Similarly, the IPC Court found the ‘727 patent also disclosed a cylinder (5) that could serve as buffer to slow down the velocity when the cover (9) is closing. The Court concluded that a person of ordinary skill in the art could easily realize all the limitations of claim 1 and claim 2 of the ‘526 patent by referencing to the combination of the ‘327 and ‘942 patents, or the combination of the ‘327 and the ‘727 patents.    

                                                                        (‘727 patent)

The plaintiff contended that there was no motivation or teaching available for an ordinarily skilled artisan to combine the alleged prior arts. The IPC Court disagreed, elaborating that to evaluate whether a POSITA would be motivated to combine the alleged prior arts, the Court will look into factors such as the relatedness of the technological fields, the commonality of the problem to be solved, the commonality of function or purpose, and the teaching and suggestion. The more factors are present, the more likely a POSITA would be motivated to combine the relevant prior arts.

Here, the ‘942 patent explicitly taught that the dampening element could make the lid spin in a smooth and controlled fashion, which aims to solve the same problem as discussed in the ‘526 patent, i.e., providing a buffer rod to restrain and allow the cover to descend slowly. The garbage can disclosed in the ‘‘727 patent, like the one claimed in the ‘526 patent, also controlled the opening and closing of its cover via the mechanism of connecting rods. The ‘727 patent further revealed an air pressure buffer device to slow the closing of its cover. Hence, there is commonality of function and purpose between the ‘727 and the ‘526 patent. In sum, a POSITA would have sufficient motivation and suggestion to combine the alleged prior arts.

Given that the asserted patent was not patentable, the IPC Court rejected plaintiff’s patent infringement claims.

Source:  https://judgment.judicial.gov.tw/FILES/IPCV/113%2c%e6%b0%91%e5%b0%88%e8%a8%b4%2c29%2c20251118%2c2.pdf

Taiwan’s IP Office cancelled “BOS” for likelihood of confusion with “HUGO BOSS”

On October 27, 2025, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) ruled in the favor of Hugo Boss AG (“HB”), cancelling the contested trademark “BOS” over likelihood of confusion with the famous icon of the fashion brand (Reg. No. 00174072, 01552958, 01965218, and 02267311, see below).

The contested trademark, “BOS” (Reg. No. 02386355, see below), was filed on August 29, 2023, and granted on July 1, 2024. It covered services in Class 35, including advertisements, marketing, etc. HB filed opposition on September 30, 2024, citing violation of Articles 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

TIPO cancelled the contested trademark 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 another’s registered trademark, designated for use in identical or similar goods or services, and hence may raise confusion among the relevant consumers.

2.    TIPO noted that “BOSS” constituted the dominant portion of HB’s cited trademarks, and that both “BOS” and “BOSS” shared the same letters “BOS”. The lack of additional “S” in the contested trademark was only minor difference. TIPO considered “BOS” visually and verbally similar to HB’s “BOSS”.

3.    On the designated services, TIPO found HB’s cited trademarks covered similar services. For example, the No. 00174072 trademark covered services for market research, and marketing consultations; the No. 01552958 trademark covered services for online shopping and advertising; the No. 01965218 trademark covered market promotion, market analysis, and advertisement; and the No. 02267311 trademark covered marketing and distribution consultation, advertisement, and enterprise consultation and managements. TIPO considered these services overlapped with those designated by the contested trademark.

4.    Further, based on extensive evidence of trademark use throughout the past 40 years, HB’s “HUGO BOSS” and “BOSS” trademarks have become well-known in the field of perfume, apparel, and other fashionable accessories. As such, consumers in Taiwan shall be more familiar with HB’s “HUGO BOSS” and “BOSS”.

5.    In view of the similarity between “BOS” and “BOSS”, the overlap and relatedness of the designated services, and the strong brand recognition among the relevant consumers, TIPO considered the registration of “BOS” may create confusion with HB’s cited trademarks. Hence, the contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

 

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOlB8oTp%2Fsw4WvCMPtSe%2BpxOS2pAUY6

Interparfums Suisse SARL Prevailed in Trademark Opposition Over its “LANVIN” Brand

In a trademark opposition filed by Interparfums Suisse SARL (“Interparfums”), Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) ruled in Interparfums’ favor and cancelled the contested trademark “LannVann”, finding such trademark confusingly similar to Interparfums’ famous perfume brand “LANVIN” (Reg. No. 00837664, see below).

The contested trademark, “LannVann” (Reg. No. 02397609, see below), was filed on February 6, 2024, and granted on September 1, 2024. “LannVann” was designated for use in goods in Class 3, including facial cream, toner, skincare products, face mask, eye cream, lipstick, sunscreen, eye mask, essential oil, etc. Interparfums filed opposition on November 29, 2024, alleging that registration of “LannVann” violated Articles 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

On October 31, 2025, TIPO rendered a determination based on Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act, finding registration of “LannVann” may cause confusion with Interparfums’ “LANVIN” brand:

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, designated for use in identical or similar products or services, and hence likely to cause confusion among the relevant consumers. 

2.    Here, TIPO noted that Interparfums’ “LANVIN” trademark demonstrated strong distinctiveness. Although “LANVIN” is also the name of the brand’s founder, Jeanne Lanvin, it is not related to the nature or function of the designated products. Further, by combining the word “LANVIN” and the drawing of a woman and a child, as a whole, TIPO considered consumers would still perceive “LANVIN” as the identifier of source of goods or services. 

3.    On similarity, while Interparfums’ cited trademark further included the drawing of a woman and a child, TIPO still deemed “LANVIN” as the dominant portion of the trademark. Given that both “LANVIN” and “LannVann” shared similar initial letters and overall structure and sequence, TIPO found there was verbal and visual similarity between the two trademarks.

4.    As to similarity of designated products, TIPO noted that “LANVIN” was also designated for use in products like soap, perfume, essential oil, and cosmetics. These products are related to personal hygiene and beauty, which overlap with the product categories of the contested “LannVann”. Hence, TIPO determined that both trademarks cover similar products. 

5.    In view of the similarity between the two trademarks, the strength of “LANVIN” brand, and the overlap of product categories, TIPO concluded that the registration of “LannVann” may create confusion with the famous “LANVIN” brand. The contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOlBsYdrPvSKSd8Sw1bVg5SLQRbYFd0

HTC Prevailed In Opposition Over Its “HTC VIVE” Trademark

On October 31, 2025, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) cancelled the contested “Htc” trademark, finding such trademark may cause confusion with HTC’s “HTC VIVE” trademark (Reg. No. 01803242, see below). 

The contested trademark, “Htc” (Reg. No. 02425673, see below), was filed by Highlight Tech Corp. (“Highlight”) on May 24, 2024, and granted on January 1, 2025. It was designated for use in goods in Class 9, including computer programs, downloadable applications, scanners, chips, semiconductors, wearable electronic devices, etc. HTC filed opposition on April 2, 2025, alleging that the registration for wearable electronic devices shall be cancelled in view of Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, or 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

TIPO sided with HTC on October 31, 2025, cancelling “Htc” based on Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act:

1.    Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act provides that a mark shall not be registered if it is identical or similar to another’s registered trademark, designated for use in identical or similar goods or services, and therefore may create confusion among the relevant consumers. 

2.    On similarity of trademark, TIPO noted that both the contested trademark and HTC’s “HTC VIVE” contain the same English letters “H”, “T”, and “C”, which constitute the dominant portion of the trademarks. Although the contested trademark includes an additional blue frame surrounding the letters, TIPO considered such differences minor. The contested trademark was deemed visually and verbally similar to HTC’s “HTC VIVE”.

3.    On similarity of designated products, HTC’s “HTC VIVE” was designated for smart glasses and wearable devices consisting of software and display, which are similar to the wearable electronic devices covered by the contested “Htc”. TIPO considered both products categories to provide similar functions for smart wearables.

4.    While both “Htc” and “HTC VIVE” are distinctive, TIPO noted that based on HTC’s extensive evidence of trademark use, including market share data, sales reports, TIPO’s prior determinations, awards, exhibitions, news reports, and media coverages, “HTC VIVE” is more recognizable among the relevant consumers. 

5.    In view of the above, given the similarity between the trademarks, the overlap of designated products, and the strong brand recognition established by “HTC VIVE” in the field of VR wearable devices, TIPO concluded that the contested trademark would create confusion with HTC’s well-known brand. The contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

 

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOlCc8UpvtJiaCEr7%2BshsbbRH5OA6Xx

Products Achieving the Patented Result Does Not Warrant a Finding of Infringement under Doctrine of Equivalents

In a patent infringement lawsuit involving utility model patent M513550 (the ‘550 patent), the appellate panel of Taiwan’s Intellectual Property and Commercial Court (“IPC Court”) rejected patentee’s arguments based on doctrine of equivalents, and upheld the lower court’s finding of non-infringement (114-Ming-Zhuan-Shang-Zi No. 11).  

 

The ‘550 patent, entitled “Support plate”, is a utility model patent directed to a foldable frame that could provide better stability and convenience in fixing and supporting one’s electronic devices, such as smartphones or tablets.

 

The patentee of ‘550 patent, Senseage Co. Ltd. (“Senseage”) , sued Uniicreative Co. Ltd. (“Uniicreative”) before Taiwan’s Intellectual Property and Commercial Court (“IPC Court”), alleging that Uniicreative’s products “Kira Kobai” (magnetic mobile power bank with supporting panel), “Spunk” (magnetic mobile power bank with supporting panel), and “Apex Skinarma IML” (smartphone case with supporting panel) infringed at least Claim 1 of the ‘550 patent. At the first instance level, the IPC Court rejected Senseage’s claim, finding no infringement. Senseage then appealed. 

 

On November 6, 2025, the IPC Court entered its judgment in Uniicreative’s favor, upholding the lower court’s finding that the accused products did not infringe Claim 1.

 

Claim 1 of the ‘550 patent reads:

  ”A support plate (100) for supporting an electronic device includes a first plate (110), a foldable portion (160), and a second plate (200). 

The foldable portion (160) is connected to the first plate (110) and the second plate (200) respectively. 

The first plate (110) further includes a connecting portion (210) away from the foldable portion (160) and an abutting portion (220) adjacent to the foldable portion (160). 

The second plate (200) has at least one connected portion (120) and an anti-slip element (140) attached to one side of the second plate (200).

The connecting portion (210) is foldable and can be connected and positioned with the connected portion (120). 

The abutting portion (220) can support the second plate (200) and forms a downward angle with the second plate (200).”

 

On Appeal, the parties’ argument mainly focused on whether the accused products have “The second plate (200) has at least one connected portion (120) and an anti-slip element (140) attached to one side of the second plate (200).” The IPC Court determined that the accused products did not have “an anti-slip element attached to one side of the second plate.” 

More specifically, for Uniicreative’s “Kira Kobai” and “Spunk“ series, the IPC Court noted that when charging user’s device, e.g., the smartphone, the smartphone could be fixed by the underlying magnetic coil without an “additional anti-slip element that is attached to one side of the second plate”. As to Uniicreative’s “Apex Skinarma IML” series, the IPC Court found that it is a smartphone case with supporting panel, and that when in use, the smartphone would actually be covered and fixed within the smartphone case, without any additional ant-slip element.

The Senseage argued that Uniicreative shall nonetheless infringe under doctrine of equivalents, because the magnetic coil and the surrounding structure of the smartphone case achieve similar anti-slip result through substantially similar way and function. That is, when in use, the position of the device will be fixed. The IPC Court disagreed, reasoning that the function of the claimed anti-slip element is to prevent the device from dropping or slipping, while that of the magnetic coil of the “Kira Kobai” and “Spunk“ series is to provide stable transmission and connection when charging the device. As to the surrounding structure of the smartphone case, the IPC Court found the function of the surrounding of a smartphone case is to protect and cover the smartphone, which is substantially different from that of the claimed anti-slip element.

In view of the above, the IPC Court upheld the lower court’s finding of non-infringement, and denied the patentee’s appeal accordingly. 

Source: 

https://judgment.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD/data.aspx?ty=JD&id=IPCV,114%2c%e6%b0%91%e5%b0%88%e4%b8%8a%2c11%2c20251106%2c2

Sanyang Motor Beat Patent Infringement Claim Based on Prosecution Estoppel

On November 4, 2025, Taiwan’s IP Court ruled in the favor of Sanyang Motor (“SYM”), rejecting patent infringement claim based on Taiwan invention patent I401180. (113 Ming-Zhuan-Su-Zi No. 49).

 

The I401180 patent (‘180 patent) was directed to an enhanced warning function that aims to provide extra way to turn on motorcycle’s headlight assembly when in some situations, such as collision accident, the start switch could not be used to turn on the motorcycle’s light assembly.

 

The language of claim 1 of the ‘180 patent recites that: 

“ A vehicle with three wheels or less and enhanced warning function includes a vehicle body, a power supply (32) housed within the vehicle body, a headlight assembly (33) mounted on the vehicle body, a controller (34) that controls the headlight assembly (33) to illuminate and is powered by the power supply (32), and a start switch (35) disposed between the controller (34) and the power supply (32); characterized in that: the vehicle body is further provided with an emergency switch (36), the emergency switch (36) having a connecting wire (361) electrically connected to the power supply (32) and the controller (34) respectively, and an opening and closing element (362) disposed on the connecting wire (361); furthermore, the start switch has a keyhole (351), and the keyhole (351) is interconnected with the connecting wire (361), so as to additionally utilize the emergency switch (36) to connect the power supply (32) and the controller (34) to control the headlight assembly to illuminate (33).” 

 

A representative figure of the ‘180 patent is as follows:

The parties stipulated that the MMBCU model met the requirements “A vehicle with three wheels or less and enhanced warning function includes a vehicle body, a power supply (32) housed within the vehicle body, a headlight assembly (33) mounted on the vehicle body, a controller (34) that controls the headlight assembly (33) to illuminate and is powered by the power supply (32), and a start switch (35) disposed between the controller (34) and the power supply (32)”. However, SYM argued that its product did not possess the limitation: “the vehicle body is further provided with an emergency switch (36), the emergency switch (36) having a connecting wire (361) electrically connected to the power supply (32) and the controller (34) respectively, and an opening and closing element (362) disposed on the connecting wire (361); furthermore, the start switch has a keyhole (351), and the keyhole (351) is interconnected with the connecting wire (361) , so as to additionally utilize the emergency switch (36) to connect the power supply (32) and the controller (34) to control the headlight assembly to illuminate (33)”. 

More specifically, SYM contended that its emergency switch is connected to the controller and the light assembly, not the controller and the power supply; and that the keyhole of its start switch was not connected to the same wire as the opening and closing element.  The Plaintiff, on the other hand, argued that SYM infringed under doctrine of equivalents. 

The Court held that: 

1. During prosecution, any modification, amendment, or response that resulted in narrowing the claimed scope would subject the patentee to estoppel, that is, the patentee will not be able to reclaim what was narrowed or disclaimed during prosecution. 

2. In this case, the Court sided with SYM, finding the plaintiff should be subject to prosecution estoppel when, during prosecution of the ‘180 patent, it added the element “the start switch has a keyhole (351), and the keyhole (351) is interconnected with the connecting wire (361)”, and emphasized in its response to Patent Office’s office action that the keyhole was located on said connecting wire that also connected with the opening and closing element of the emergency switch. 

3. As such, the Plaintiff shall be prohibited from expanding its claimed scope to capture arrangement that “the keyhole and the opening and closing element each located on different connecting wire”, which is the approach taken by SYM when arranging the wire connection for its light assembly module of MMBCU.

In view of the above, the Court rejected that patentee’s infringement claim against SYM accordingly.

Source:

https://judgment.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD/data.aspx?ty=JD&id=IPCV,113%2c%e6%b0%91%e5%b0%88%e8%a8%b4%2c49%2c20251104%2c3