MANGO Beats Mr. MANGO in Taiwan’s Intellectual Property Office

Fashion giant Consolidated Artists B.V. (“Consolidated Artists”), the owner of the registered “MANGO” trademark in Taiwan, successfully cancelled “Mr. MANGO” in the opposition proceeding of Taiwan’s Intellectual Property Office (“IPO”).

                         

According to Consolidated Artists, the opposing trademark “MANGO” has acquired registration in numerous countries since as early as 1974. Currently, there are more than 2,200 MANGO stores across 110 countries, and the brand and business reach five continents around the globe. In Taiwan, the first flagship store featuring the MANGO trademark was established back in 1997, and for now Consolidated Artists’ local store network has grown significantly, with 20 stores covering the entire area. Moreover, the opposing trademark “MANGO” has been recognized as famous mark by Taiwan’s IPO.

                     (The opposing trademark (TW Reg. No. 683050) (exemplified))

The opposed trademark, namely, “Mr. MANGO” (as shown below), was filed by a Mr. Zeng in June 19, 2018, and registered on February 16, 2019, designated to goods including scarf, necktie, and hats. Consolidated Artists filed opposition on May 10, 2019, citing violation of Article 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Law. The IPO found the opposed trademark should be cancelled based on Article 30.1.11.

                       (Opposed Trademark Reg. No. 01970824)

Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Law reads: “A trademark shall not be registered in any of the following:……being identical with or similar to another person’s well-known trademark or mark, and hence there exists a likelihood of confusion on the relevant public or a likelihood of dilution of the distinctiveness or reputation of the said well-known trademark or mark”.

The IPO found the opposed mark subject to Article 30.1.11 pursuant to the following reasons:

First of all, the opposing trademark “MANGO” is a well-known trademark, which has been filed for registration in Taiwan since as early as 1994 (e.g., Reg. No. 683050), designated for goods such as clothing, perfume, glasses, jewels, and purses (e.g., Reg. No. 683050, 814574, 1040217, 1047182, and 1292623). There is sufficient evidence showing the opposing trademark has gained the status of famous mark prior to the application date of the opposed trademark.

As to similarity, IPO determined that while the opposed trademark consists of “Mr. MANGO” and “芒果先生”, the word “MANGO” would still be the main portion that catches the attention of ordinary consumer, because both ”Mr.” and “先生” are words used to refer to male. In other words, the most distinctive portions of the opposed trademark and the opposing trademark are both “MANGO,” which may cause ordinary consumers to misunderstand that the goods featuring the opposed trademark comes from the opposing trademark. Hence, the opposed trademark is similar with the opposing trademark.

Moreover, the opposing trademark is distinctive as an arbitrary mark by using the word “mango” (with ordinary meaning of mango tree or its fruit) in apparel and accessories products. Through its continuous and worldwide use, the opposing trademark is well-known and highly recognized among the relevant consumers in the relevant markets. In contrast, there is no supporting document submitted by Mr. Zeng demonstrating the actual use of the opposed trademark. Therefore, IPO found the opposing trademark is more popular and famous than the opposed trademark.

In view of the above, the IPO ruled that the opposed trademark “Mr. MANGO” should be cancelled based on Article 30.1.11 of Taiwan’s Trademark Law.

Source: https://twtmsearch.tipo.gov.tw/OS0/OS0401_SCN3.jsp?issueNo=XpJ13RyT4M2pLSVdNL1dKMVUwanBUR3FwQ2FoZz09&l6=zh_TW&isReadBulletinen_US=&isReadBulletinzh_TW=true

都是辣椒惹的禍？

原告洛瑪斯坦有限公司為經營印度料理餐廳之業者，於2016年6月29日以系爭商標（如下），指定使用於「餐廳；小吃攤」服務，向被告智慧財產局（下稱智慧局）申請註冊。經智慧局核准列為註冊第1825209號商標。其後，參加人美商布林克國際公司(Brinker International,Inc.，下稱美商布林克)認為系爭商標與其註冊第00047012號商標、第00193699號商標（下合稱據爭商標，如下所示）提出異議，主張系爭商標違反商標法第30條第1項第10款、第11款及第12款規定，智慧局審查後，認為系爭商標確有違反第30條第1項第10款規定，於2018年12月28日做出系爭商標應予撤銷之處分。原告訴願遭駁回後，續於智慧財產法院提出訴訟。

◎系爭商標

註冊號： 1825209

申請日期：2016/06/29

商品或服務名稱：餐廳；小吃攤

◎據爭商標

註冊號： 00047012

申請日期：1990/02/03

商品或服務名稱：餐飲服務

            

    註冊號： 00193699

    申請日期：2003/04/02

                 商品或服務名稱：餐廳，飲食店，酒吧服務。

商標法第30條第1項10款規定，商標有下列情形之一，不得註冊：…十、相同或近似於他人同一或類似商品或服務之註冊商標或申請在先之商標，有致相關消費者混淆誤認之虞者。至於判斷是否「有致相關消費者混淆誤認之虞者」，法院法院會參考下列因素：(1)商標識別性之強弱；(2)商標是否近似暨其近似之程度；(3)商品／服務是否類似暨其類似之程度；(4)先權利人多角化經營之情形；(5)實際混淆誤認之情事；(6)相關消費者對各商標熟悉之程度；(7)系爭商標之申請人是否善意等，綜合認定是否已達有致相關消費者產生混淆誤認之虞。

一、據爭商標非直接說明餐飲服務內容，字體又經過設計，具識別性：

在商標識別性方面，法院認為據爭商標之外文「chili's」雖有辣椒之意，又與指定使用之餐飲服務提供之商品有所相關，但該字並非直接說明所提供服務之品質或相關特性，且字體有經過特殊設計，於「 ' 」符號位置設計為小辣椒圖形，整體予人印象鮮明，故具有相當識別性，亦即消費者看到「chili's」時，會認為是表彰餐飲服務的來源（源自美商布林克），而不是單純理解成「辣椒」。

二、系爭商標雖有象臉設計，但整體仍呈現辣椒外型，與據爭商標在外觀、讀音、觀念皆近似：

在近似的判斷上，法院認定系爭商標由尾端捲曲以紅色設色及蒂頭以綠色設色之辣椒圖形與紅色字體大寫字母外文「CHILLIES」上下排列所構成，而據爭商標則由稍經設計之小寫字母外文「chili's」及「s」字母左上方搭配一小辣椒圖形所構成，經設計之外文仍可辨識出「chili's 」之設計字體，兩商標相較，二者外文「CHILLIES」與「chili's 」均係「辣椒」或使人聯想「辣椒」之意涵，僅大小寫及「L」有無重複之些微不同，外觀相彷彿，且觀念及讀音均極相彷彿，應屬構成近似之商標，且近似之程度高。

原告又主張，系爭商標之圖形部分是出自原告獨特之創作理念，由獨特象圖與辣椒圖融合組成，其外觀與單純之辣椒植物已有不同，文字部分「CHILLIES」則是原告以中文「淇里思」為發想，自創之音譯名稱，並搭配原告獨創之圖形，系爭商標圖樣整體具有強烈識別性，而據爭商標僅單純為英文單字「chili」（辣椒）之設計字，並以小辣椒圖案代表「 ' 」，此設計使據爭商標整體未脫離英文單字「chili」之型態（即「辣椒的」），且其中之小辣椒圖案極為細小、不明顯，消費者不容易察覺到據以異議商標之設計，兩商標整體外觀予人之寓目印象截然不同，不構成近似云云。惟法院認為，系爭商標之圖形雖含有象臉設計之意涵，然消費者觀看時，所獲得之直接印象仍為一紅辣椒圖形，與外文「CHILLIES」觀念相通，系爭商標與據爭商標之外觀、觀念均與「辣椒」有關，讀音亦相近，故構成高度近似之商標，原告之主張，不足採信。

三、而商標皆指定使用於餐飲相關服務：

此外，系爭商標指定使用於「餐廳、小吃攤」服務，與據爭商標則指定使用於「餐飲服務」、「餐廳、飲食店、酒吧服務」，皆屬餐飲相關服務，依一般社會通念及市場交易情形，屬同一或高度類似之服務。

原告雖主張，原告實際上經營印度料理餐廳，美商布林克公司則經營美式休閒餐廳，印度料理與美式料理之食材、調味、烹調方式及服務客群等均有明顯區別，相關消費者不致發生混淆誤認。但法院不同意，因為系爭商標及據爭商標註冊時均未限定其經營餐廳之種類，再者，所謂相關消費者不僅包含實際前往餐廳消費之客人，也包含由各種管道可能知悉、接觸商標提供之商品或服務之人，系爭商標與據以異議商標高度近似，原告以系爭商標係經營印度料理餐廳，據爭商標係經營美式料理餐廳，主張二者提供之服務並非類似，相關消費者不會發生混淆誤認之虞，不具說服力。

四、系爭商標未能提出使用資料證實在註冊時已為消費者所熟悉：

在消費者熟悉的程度比較上，法院從美商布林克所提供的證物觀察，發現據爭商標確實在2002年開始使用於餐飲服務，於系爭商標註冊日（2017年2 月16日）前，已有使用多年之事實；反觀系爭商標並未提出在註冊日前有大量使用的證據來說服法院，佐證系爭商標在註冊時也已廣為消費者熟知，故法院認為消費者確實較熟悉據爭商標，而應賦予較大保護。

結論：

綜合上述，法院參酌系爭商標與據爭商標高度近似，又皆指定使用於餐飲類服務，且據爭商標具有相當識別性，較為相關消費者所熟悉而應給予較大之保護等相關因素，認為系爭商標之註冊確有可能使相關消費者誤認系爭商標與據以異議商標指定之服務係來自同一來源，或者誤認二商標之使用人間存在關係企業、授權關係、加盟關係或其他類似關係，而產生混淆誤認之虞，故有商標法第30條第1項第10款規定之適用。

本案說明了一般人對商標服務是否類似的判斷盲點，以為法院會以「實際」使用的服務來判斷，但實務上，法院仍會審酌商標指定使用的商品或服務類別來判斷。

There Is Only One Black Mamba, and We All Know He Plays Basketball

Mr. Yuan-Hu Lin (Mr. Lin), a successful rally car racer of Taiwan, was ruled unable to register “Black Mamba” as trademark because “Black Mamba” is the stage name of Kobe Bryant, the worldwide famous LA Laker’s former shooting guard.

On April 21, 2016, Mr. Lin filed trademark application for “Black mamba” (hereafter “disputed mark”, as shown below), designated for goods under class 25, including outfits such as sports clothing, T-shirt, scooter clothing, racing apparel, athletic apparel, etc. The disputed mark was registered and published on November 16, 2016 (Reg. No. 01804197), and was subsequently opposed by Kobe Inc. (“KOBE”) on February 15, 2017, alleging violation of, among the others, Article 30.1.13 of Taiwan’s Trademark Law. Taiwan’s Intellectual Property Office sided with KOBE. Mr. Lin appealed, and the IP Court affirms.  

Article 30.1.13 of Taiwan’s Trademark Law provides that: “A trademark shall not be registered in any of the following: …containing another person’s portrait or well-known name, stage name, pseudonym, or alternative name, unless the said person consents to the application”.

The IP Court found that although the disputed mark was stylized and presented the image of an attacking black mamba (i.e., the snake), the overall appearance and impression of the disputed mark may still be viewed and perceived as the word “black mamba”. The IP Court further noted that stage names do not necessarily refer to the names used by movie or TV celebrities only. Professional athletes, who also provide highly entertaining experiences through performances in competing sports events, may also be viewed as celebrities and thus may use stage names.

Since as early as 2010, according to KOBE, the term “black mamba” has been widely used, both in Taiwan and foreign countries, to describe the future Hall of Famer Kobe Bryant and his aggressive style of playing basketball. The IP Court found KOBE’s above statements persuasive in view of the voluminous supporting materials, including news report, social media discussion, and the associated merchandise. As such, the IP Court ruled that “Black Mamba” has been a famous stage name referred to the former LA Laker’s superstar, and is eligible for protection as moral right. Hence, no one should be able to register a trademark containing such name without Kobe Bryant’s consent.  

Mr. Lin tried to justify the disputed mark by arguing that the registration of the disputed mark was actually based on his nickname “black mamba”; and that his fan base is totally different from that of Kobe Bryant, so that the registration is out of good faith without intent to create confusion. However, the IP Court found the arguments unpersuasive, because the evidence submitted by Mr. Lin is only fan discussions limited on specific social media platform, without wide news coverage or reputable reports as presented by KOBE. Such evidence is insufficient to prove that at the time of the registration of the disputed mark, the word “black mamba” is directed to Mr. Lin and perceived as his nickname in the relevant consumers.

Based on the forgoing reasons, the IP Court affirms Intellectual Property Office’s decision in cancelling Mr. Lin’s disputed mark. We will see whether there will be appeal challenging IP Court’s judgment.

Source: 智慧財產法院108年度行商訴字第78號 https://law.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD/data.aspx?ty=JD&id=IPCA,108%2c%e8%a1%8c%e5%95%86%e8%a8%b4%2c78%2c20200108%2c2

Watch Out — A Leaf May Be Enough For Taiwan’s IPO To Find Similarity With APPLE’s Trademark

Opposing Trademark (Reg. No. 01620273)	Opposed Mark (Reg. No. 01945859)

Watch 

Out— 

AppleCareStation (“蘋果保衛站”) is a local business providing backup support, maintenance, and repair service for the well-known iPhone, iPAD, MAC, and relevant 3C products. AppleCareStation filed application for the opposed mark for service designated under Class 35 on March 29, 2018, and later obtained approval of Taiwan’s Intellectual Property Office (“IPO”) for the registration of its opposed mark (Reg. No. 01945859) on October 16, 2018.

APPLE Inc. (“APPLE”) filed opposition against the opposed mark on January 15, 2019, alleging, among the others, violations of Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act, which reads: “A trademark shall not be registered in any of the following:….(11) being identical with or similar to another person’s well-known trademark or mark, and hence there exists a likelihood of confusion on the relevant public or a likelihood of dilution of the distinctiveness or reputation of the said well-known trademark or mark, unless the proprietor of the said well-known trademark or mark consents to the application.”

On December 19, 2019, IPO sided with APPLE, ruling that the opposed mark is similar with APPLE’s famous trademark “APPLE LOGO” (i.e., the opposing trademark), which may cause confusion among the relevant consumers.

Based on voluminous evidence submitted by APPLE, including decision of Taiwan’s IP Court, IPO’s prior decisions, news report, and commercial success, IPO first found that the opposing trademark has reached the status of a well-known trademark.

With regard to issue of similarity, IPO found that although the main feature of APPLE’s opposing trademark (an apple) is different from that of the opposed mark (a personified smartphone), both marks feature a leaf extending in an upper-right direction. Thus, while the opposed mark is not highly similar with the opposing trademark, ordinary consumers may still find both marks similar with each other.     

The IPO also found APPLE’s opposing trademark demonstrates stronger distinctiveness and enjoys higher familiarity than AppleCareStation’s opposed mark. In addition, APPLE’s business is diversified. For example, the opposing trademark is also designated for service under Class 35, including relevant services for accessories of computer, software, enterprise advertising, marketing consultation, etc. Moreover, IPO noted that it may be AppleCareStation’s intent to, by using its opposed mark, cause the relevant consumers to associate the opposed mark with APPLE’s famous trademark and products. In other words, AppleCareStation’s application does not seem to be made based on good faith. 

In view of the forgoing reasons, the IPO found for APPLE, concluding that AppleCareStation’s opposed mark should be cancelled due to violation of Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act. It remains to be seen if AppleCareStation will appeal to contest the IPO’s decision.

IPO’s decision: https://twtmsearch.tipo.gov.tw/OS0/OS0401_SCN3.jsp?issueNo=XpJ13RyT4RU9GOCs1OW4rNEk0bEEvMDUreVhhUT09&l6=zh_TW&isReadBulletinen_US=&isReadBulletinzh_TW=true

在保護別人的「蘋果」前，「蘋果保衛站」須先保衛自己的商標

「蘋果保衛站企業社」於2018年3月29日向經濟部智慧財產局(“下稱智慧局”)申請註冊系爭商標，指定使用於第35類「市場行銷；為軟體發行業者提供行銷服務；廣告宣傳；……；電腦周邊配備零售批發；電腦硬體零售批發；為他人安排電訊服務預約；商品買賣之仲介服務」等服務，並於2018年10月16日獲准註冊(註冊號：01945859)。美商蘋果公司(下稱蘋果公司)於2019年1月15日對系爭商標提出異議，認為系爭商標有違反商標法第30條第1項第10、11、12款的情形。智慧局審理後，認為系爭商標與蘋果公司的據爭商標(如下圖所示)有商標法第30條第1項第11款不得註冊的事由，故予以撤銷(2019年12月19日中台異字第G01080041號)。

據爭商標 (註冊號：01620273)	系爭商標 (註冊號：01945859)

「蘋果保衛站企業社」於

商標法第30條第1項第11款規定，若商標「相同或近似於他人著名商標或標章，有致相關公眾混淆誤認之虞，或有減損著名商標或標章之識別性或信譽之虞者」，不得註冊。適用本款的前提是商標與他人商標構成近似，且他人商標已臻著名。智慧局基於下述理由，認為「蘋果保衛站企業社」的系爭商標有商標法第30條第1項第11款所規定的事由，故撤銷其註冊：

1.      在商標著名性方面，智慧局根據蘋果公司檢送的資料，包含1991年至1997年商品型錄、行銷目錄及年報、網站資料、「APPLE」（蘋果電腦）之報導資料、智慧局過去異議案之審定書、智慧財產法院98年度行商訴字第243號行政判決、Interbrand全球最佳品牌 (Best Global Brands)排行榜、美國商業週刊評選2004～2007 年全球100 大品牌列表與蘋果公司品牌價值資料、「The World's Greatest Brands」、2018年BrandZ全球最具價值品牌100強第2名、2018財富世界500強第11名及世界各國註冊資料，認為蘋果公司所註冊包含據爭商標在內的諸多「蘋果」、「APPLE」及「APPLE LOGO」商標，因為品牌排名及價值一直名列前茅，智慧型手機「iPhone」系列更廣受消費者所喜愛，所表彰之商譽於本件系爭註冊第01945859號「蘋果保衛站企業社標章」商標申請註冊前已廣為相關事業及一般消費者所熟知，而達著名之程度，且著名性極高。

2.      在系爭商標與據爭商標是否近似方面，智慧局則認為系爭商標係由擬人化手機圖案上方置一葉片、左右各結合扳手、榔頭圖形，並於右下搭配一盾牌十字圖所組成；而蘋果公司之據爭商標，則由具有與果身分離向右上延伸葉片之蘋果設計圖所構成。二者相較，雖前者以擬人化手機、後者以蘋果圖形為主要構圖而有不同，然前者之葉片與手機圖形之結合設計並非常見事物之組合，其葉片於整體圖形仍具有識別功能非僅為裝飾，而二者圖形上部均有分離向右上延伸之葉片，於外觀上仍有相仿之處，是就兩造商標整體圖樣，以具有普通知識經驗之消費者，於購買時施以普通之注意，可能會誤認二者來自同一來源或雖不相同但有關聯之來源，應屬構成近似之商標，僅近似程度不高。

3.      在其他判斷混淆誤認之因素上，智慧局認為蘋果公司的據爭商標所呈現的圖形與所指定使用的商品或服務沒有關聯，具高度識別性，且經過長年的成功行銷，消費者較為熟悉，稍有攀附即容易引起誤認；此外，蘋果公司業務有多角化經營，其據爭商標也有指定使用於和系爭商標相同的第35類服務；再加上系爭商標搭配中文「蘋果保衛站」使用，而「APPLE LOGO」又為蘋果公司之著名商標，蘋果保衛站企業社之使用加深其系爭商標與蘋果公司據爭商標之聯想，且隱喻希望消費者將蘋果保衛站企業社提供之服務與特定商品/服務來源彼此連結，以達行銷目的，故智慧局認系爭商標之註冊申請並非出於善意。

基於上述理由，雖然本案雙方的商標近似程度不高，但考量蘋果公司的據爭商標經長期廣泛行銷已臻著名，著名性極高，較為相關消費者所熟悉，具高度識別性，又有多角化經營之情形，且系爭商標之註冊申請非出於善意，從而，蘋果保衛站企業社以系爭商標申請註冊，並指定使用於第35類相關服務，易使消費者誤認其提供之服務係源自於蘋果公司，而誤認二商標之服務為同一來源，或者誤認二商標之使用人間存在關係企業、授權關係、加盟關係或其他類似關係，而產生混淆誤認之虞，系爭商標之註冊，應有商標法第30條第1項第11款前段規定之適用。

雖然蘋果保衛站企業社主張在我國維修市場上有許多標榜蘋果手機專業維修的商店，消費者不會將蘋果手機專業維修站誤認，但智慧局認為對於商品之維修服務，常見有指示性合理使用之情形，即第三人以他人的商標指示該他人的商品或服務，如屬符合商業交易習慣的誠實信用方法、有使用他人商標之必要及使用結果不會造成混淆誤認之虞，才屬商標合理使用之範疇。然而，本案蘋果保衛站企業社是以系爭商標表彰自己服務，與以他人的商標指示該他人的商品或服務不同，故智慧局不採納其意見。

智慧局2019年12月19日中台異字第G01080041號審定書https://twtmsearch.tipo.gov.tw/OS0/OS0401_SCN3.jsp?issueNo=XpJ13RyT4RU9GOCs1OW4rNEk0bEEvMDUreVhhUT09&l6=zh_TW&isReadBulletinen_US=&isReadBulletinzh_TW=true