個人於社區大廳、大門以及電梯等公共領域之行動舉止，未必具有合理隱私的期待，若遭公開或為他人所知悉，不當然具備違法性

本案原告為大來賞社區住戶，主張被告身為社區總幹事，竟然未經原告同意，擅自將含有原告畫面的監視器檔案，依桃園市政府警察局桃園分局之指示，交予第三人供案件調查之用，已侵害原告隱私，致生精神上痛苦，故主張依民法第184 條第1 項前段、第2 項、第185 條、第195 條第1 項前段及個資法第28條、第29條第1 項等法律關係，請求被告賠償精神慰撫金新臺幣50萬元。被告抗辯其確實有依警察局來函交付大樓監視器檔案，但此舉是依警察局的要求而提供資料，並無侵害原告權利。

法院認為：

1.     首先，隱私權之保護，必以主張隱私權之人對於該隱私有合理之期待為原則，尚不得漫為主張。而所謂隱私之合理期待，應就個案判斷。個人之行動舉止，於私領域空間，固然係受絕對保護，惟個人於公共領域之行動舉止，並非發生於私領域空間，則如此部分之公開或為他人知悉、為個人同意或可得而知者，即難謂此等對隱私權造成之侵害，具有違法性。

2.     經調查，法院發現系爭監視器檔案所錄得之畫面，係拍攝大來賞社區之大廳、大門以及電梯等處。法院認現代都市生活人口密集，居住空間多為公寓大廈型態之集合式住宅，則住戶間就共用空間之隱私權保障，即應依一般社會大眾對生活隱私之合理期待程度為判斷，而大來賞社區裝設之監視器係拍攝社區大廳、大門以及電梯等處，目的應為管制人員進出、保障住戶安全所為必要之蒐證，而前開監視器所拍攝之處所均為社區全體住戶或得以進入該大樓之人隨時可能使用，應屬不特定人或多數人得共聞共見之場所，此是否屬於一般社會大眾所合理期待具有私密性、非公開活動之私生活領域，已有可疑。

3.     況且，本件被告是依照警察局調查作業的需求而提供監視器檔案，此有警察局函文以及該案員警到庭作證可稽。足見被告提供系爭監視器檔案係基於桃園市政府警察局之要求始然，並非無故提供前開資料予毫無關係之第三人使用，且民眾基於信賴具有國家公權力地位之偵查機關要求提供證據資料供案件偵辦之用，理應合理期待此係合乎法律之規定、而無侵害他人權利之虞，就此觀之，難認被告提供系爭監視器檔案予警局所指定之人之舉，係故意或過失之行為而侵害原告之權利。

基於上述理由，法院認為原告依民法第195 條第1 項前段、個資法第28、29條等法律關係，請求被告賠償其因隱私權受侵害之非財產上損害，於法無據。

資料來源：桃園簡易庭 108 年桃簡字第 1372 號民事判決(https://law.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD/data.aspx?ty=JD&id=TYEV,108%2c%e6%a1%83%e7%b0%a1%2c1372%2c20200306%2c1 )

APPLE QUEEN CANNOT SAVE HER APPLE

In a previous post of TIP (see https://tipnlaw.blogspot.com/2020/01/watch-out-leaf-may-be-enough-for.html), we discuss that APPLE Inc.’s trademarks are so famous that even an apple leaf would be enough for Taiwan’s Intellectual Property Office (“TIPO”) to find a trademark similar with APPLE Inc.’s logo. In a recent case, TIPO cancelled another trademark due to similarity with APPLE Inc.’s trademarks. This time, the cancelled trademark is “APPLE Queen.”

According to TIPO’s records, Mr. Chen, legal representative of GREATWONDER INTERNATIONAL TRADING CO., LTD. (“Great Wonder”), obtained trademark registration for “APPLE Queen” (Reg. No. 01880025, see below) on November 16, 2017, designated for use in goods such as purse, briefcase, handbag, card holder, umbrella, waist pack, backpack, etc. APPLE Inc. filed opposition on February 14, 2018, citing violations of Article 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Law.

APPLE Inc. argued that the opposed trademark “APPLE Queen” and its trademarks “APPLE” (Reg. No. 01457997) and “APPLE LOGO” (Reg. No. 01070447, 01620273) all feature the characters and image of an apple (see below), so the opposed trademark should be found highly similar with its famous trademarks. Besides, the designated goods of the opposed trademark are also similar with those of APPLE Inc.’s asserted trademarks. 

The trademark holder argued that apple is just usual term that is commonly used by ordinary people, so it will never cause confusion with APPLE Inc.’s trademarks. Besides, the “APPLE Queen” trademark has another stylized apple image, featuring his idea that the leather he uses in the designated products are made of apple peel. As such, the visual image, the concept, and the designated goods of the opposed trademark are different from APPLE Inc.’s asserted trademarks.

TIPO found for APPLE Inc., reasoning that:

1.     Firstly, Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Law provides that “A trademark shall not be registered if …. 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.”

2.     APPLE Inc.’s asserted trademarks are famous trademarks in Taiwan. APPLE Inc. has obtained numerous trademark registrations in Taiwan since as early as 1983, and the status of its famous trademark has been recognized and affirmed in prior IP Court’s decision and TIPO’s dispositions.

3.     Both the opposed trademark and APPLE Inc.’s asserted trademarks share similar characters “apple,” and demonstrate similar image of apple. As such, there is similarity between the opposed trademark and APPLE Inc.’s asserted trademarks. Although Mr. Chen tried to distinguish the opposed trademark by referring to the leather used by his products, such difference pertains to one’s own idea behind a trademark, and is not relevant when determining similarity of trademark.

4.     In addition, APPLE Inc.’s trademarks are highly distinctive and have been used for a very long time. Due to the high degree of distinctiveness and familiarity, APPLE Inc.’s trademarks are vulnerable to confusion even when the degree of similarity is relatively low. Moreover, compared to the voluminous records submitted by APPLE Inc., there is little evidence provided by Mr. Chen to support the actual use of the opposed trademark.

5.     Additionally, the business of APPLE Inc. is highly diversified, and the asserted trademarks are also designated in similar goods such as credit card holder, sports backpack, wallet, etc. It is likely that APPLE Inc. will enter this business field, and such likelihood should be taken into consideration when evaluating whether there is likelihood of confusion.

6.     Lastly, evidence shows that Great Wonder, the company which Mr. Chen is legal representative, also does business in IT service. It is highly likely that Mr. Chen was aware of the existence of APPLE Inc.’s asserted trademarks when filing application for the opposed trademark. As such, Mr. Chen’s filing probably was not based on good faith. 

In view of the well-known status of APPLE Inc.’s trademarks, the similarity between the opposed trademark and APPLE Inc.’s famous trademarks, the diversification of APPLE Inc.’s business, the high degree of distinctiveness of APPLE Inc.’s trademarks, and the lack of good faith when the opposed trademark was filed for application, TIPO found the opposed trademark should be cancelled in accordance with Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Law. 

Source: https://twtmsearch.tipo.gov.tw/OS0/OS0401_SCN3.jsp?issueNo=XpJ13RyT4UEdVSUZUa25LODR4VjBrSHVZTk1EQT09&l6=zh_TW&isReadBulletinen_US=&isReadBulletinzh_TW=true

Taiwan’s IPO found “CourseApp” not similar with “Coursera”

Coursera Inc., one of the leading platforms for online education service, filed opposition against the registered trademark “CourseAPP” (Reg. No. 01952878, see Below) on February 15, 2019, citing violation of Article 30.1.11 and Article 30.1.12 of Taiwan’s Trademark Law.

 On January 31, 2020, Taiwan’s Intellectual Property Office (“IPO”) found the opposed trademark “CourseApp” not similar with Coursera Inc.'s trademark “coursera,” (see below), and denied Coursera Inc.’s request to cancel the opposed trademark.

Coursera Inc. cited both Article 30.1.11 and Article 30.1.12 in its opposition against the registered “CourseAPP” trademark. As to Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Law, it is provided that a trademark shall not be registered for “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.” (Article 30.1.11) As to Article 30.1.12, it is provided that a trademark should not be registered if “being identical with or similar to another person’s earlier used trademark and to be applied for goods or services identical with or similar to those for which the earlier used trademark is applied, where the applicant with the intent to imitate the earlier used trademark, being aware of the existence of the earlier used trademark due to contractual, regional, or business connections, or any other relationship with the proprietor of the earlier used trademark, files the application for registration.”

Coursera Inc. argued that:

1.        Its trademark “coursera” and the registered “CourseAPP” trademark both demonstrate “course—” as the primary distinctive parts. Thus, the two marks are similar in terms of their meanings, pronunciations, and visual appearance.

2.        Both the registered trademark and Coursera Inc.’s trademark are designated for use in education and other similar services.

3.        Coursera Inc. was founded by professor of Stanford University, and has collaborated with numerous universities in providing online educational service. Up until April 13, 2018, users registered with its learning platform in Taiwan has reached 339,942. The asserted trademark “coursera” has become a famous brand due to continuous media coverage and its successful service.

4.        Since the registrant is doing business in the same industry and providing similar service, registrant should have known the existence of Coursera Inc.’s famous trademark, and registrant’s attempt to apply the same mark for use in similar service shows bad faith.

The registrant of the opposed trademark replied that:

1.     The registrant already submitted a disclaimer to the IPO regarding the foreign word “CourseAPP”. As such, “course” is not the distinctive portion of the registered trademark.

2.     The registered trademark shows a drawing of book on its left. The first two letters, i.e., “c” and “o”, of Coursera Inc.’s trademark are specifically designed and demonstrate the sign of “∞”, which represents the meaning of “infinity”. The last portion of the opposed trademark, i.e., “APP”, and that of Coursera Inc.’s trademark, i.e., “ra”, are visually different as well. Thus, consumers will not find the two marks similar and be confused.

3.     In addition, the opposed trademark is primarily used in agency and application service for those who plan to study abroad. To the contrary, Coursera Inc. does not provide similar service. There is no likelihood of confusion.  

The IPO found that:

1.     First of all, the evidence produced by Coursera Inc. is not sufficient to find its trademark a famous mark. Most of the documents submitted by Coursera Inc. are introductory materials without showing of the asserted “coursera” trademark. The evidence only shows that Coursera Inc.’s trademark has been used prior to the application of the registered trademark, but the volume of its actual use is not sufficient to prove Coursera Inc.’s trademark has become a famous mark prior to the application date (April 13, 2018) of the opposed trademark.

2.     Although the registrant submitted disclaimer in regard to the “CourseAPP”, such disclaimed portion should still be taken into account when considering similarity. To this end, the IPO noted that the first two letters of Coursera Inc.’s trademark are specifically designed and demonstrate the sign “∞”, and there is no specific meaning for “coursera”. Differently, the opposed trademark is composed of “course” and “app”, which demonstrates the meaning of “course application.” In addition, the pronunciation of Coursera Inc.’s trademark, i.e., [kɔrsˈɛərə], is dissimilar with that of the opposed trademark, which normally will pronounce as [kɔrsˋæp]. In sum, while the two marks show some degree of similarity in their overall appearances, they are still distinguishable in view of their pronunciations and their meanings.

3.     Coursera Inc.’s trademark is stylized and specifically designed to show the sign “∞”. The opposed trademark has a drawing of book on its left, and is not related to the nature and function of its designated service. Thus, both trademarks demonstrate considerable distinctiveness.

4.     Since Coursera Inc. does not prove that its trademark has become a famous mark, and the degree of similarity between the two trademarks is low, an ordinary consumer will not be confused by the two trademarks. Moreover, there is no evidence showing the opposed trademark has diluted the distinctiveness of Coursera Inc.’s trademark or damaged its reputation. To conclude, Article 30.1.11 should not be applicable.

5.     As to Article 30.1.12, although Coursera Inc.’s trademark has been used prior to the application of the opposed trademark, and the service in which the opposed trademark is designated is similar with that of Coursera Inc.’s, the degree of similarity between the two marks is low, and there is no record proving how the registrant learned Coursera Inc.’s trademark and wanted to imitate the same when applying for the registration of the opposed trademark. Hence, it is baseless for Coursera Inc. to apply Article 30.1.12.

It remains to be seen if Coursera Inc. will contest IPO’s finding and take this case to the Petitions and Appeals Committee of MOEA. 

Source:

https://twtmsearch.tipo.gov.tw/OS0/OS0401_SCN3.jsp?issueNo=XpJ13RyT4Q2NFM1c0WERDN2YyZm1UbmdtaTBJUT09&l6=zh_TW&isReadBulletinen_US=&isReadBulletinzh_TW=true

Taiwan’s IPO denied racer’s another attempt to trademark “Black Mamba”

On January 13, 2020, we reported that Taiwan’s IP Court ruled that the “Black Mamba” trademark (shown below) registered by a rally car racer, Mr. Yuan-Hu Lin, should be cancelled for violating Article 30.1.13 of Taiwan’s Trademark Law. (https://tipnlaw.blogspot.com/2020/01/there-is-only-one-black-mamba-and-we.html )

It turns out that when the lawsuit was still pending, Mr. Lin already filed another application to trademark black mamba with Taiwan's Intellectual Property Office ("IPO"). In Mr. Lin’s new trademark application (No. 108001481, see below), in addition to the same stylized English word “Black Mamba”, three Chinese characters “黑曼巴” in larger font are also used. Mr. Lin filed his new trademark application on January 9, 2019, designated for use in goods such as auto part, tail pipe, bicycle part, motorcycle part, automobile chassis, etc.

 On January 3, 2020, IPO once again denied Mr. Lin’s application. This time, aside from citing Article 30.1.13 of Trademark Law, IPO also found Mr. Lin’s trademark application is similar with two senior marks (Reg. No. 01707176 and 01723514), which feature stylized English word “mamba” and a drawing of snake head (see below). 

IPO found Mr. Lin’s new trademark application should be denied based on Article 30.1.10, which provides that “A trademark shall not be registered……. for being identical with or similar to another person’s registered trademark or earlier filed trademark and to be applied for goods or services identical with or similar to those for which the registered trademark is protected or the earlier filed trademark is designated, and hence there exists a likelihood of confusion on relevant consumers.”

More specifically, IPO found that:

1.     Mr. Lin’s trademark application is composed of English word “Black Mamba” and its Chinese translation “黑曼巴”. Its meaning (i.e., the deadly snake) is similar with the cited trademarks, with similar pronunciation. The only difference between the two is the word “black”, which is minor. In sum, the overall appearance between the cited trademark and Mr. Lin’s new trademark application is high.

2.     The cited trademarks are designated for use in goods such as automobile parts, piston, water tank, and the retail service for automobile parts and motorcycle parts. Although the designated goods and service are not exactly the same as those designated by Mr. Lin’s trademark application, they serve similar function and usually are sourced from the same supplier. Thus, the goods to which Mr. Lin’s trademark application and the cited trademarks are designated are similar with each other.

3.     The main portion of the cited trademark “mamba” does not describe or refer to the nature or function of its designated goods or service, which demonstrates considerable distinctiveness. Since Mr. Lin’s trademark application is highly similar with the cited trademark, there is likelihood that ordinary consumers, upon seeing the two marks, may be misled into believing the goods represented by the two trademarks are from the same source.

Based on the forgoing reasons, the IPO held that Mr. Lin’s new trademark application should be denied.

Source:

https://twtmsearch.tipo.gov.tw/OS0/OS0401_SCN3.jsp?issueNo=XpJ13RyT4NFRKTWV3MkZpMWIzV2hFYjhIWVRPQT09&l6=zh_TW&isReadBulletinen_US=&isReadBulletinzh_TW=true

Volkswagen cannot trademark “6.1” for its “Volkswagen California 6.1” in Taiwan

If you like camping, and happen to be a fan for camper van, you probably already heard of Volkswagen’s updated “Volkswagen California 6.1”. Indeed, VW’s Volkswagen California 6.1 is attractive, catchy, and equipped with everything you need for a great camping experience, including a touch-screen panel for controlling the pop-up roof, an auxiliary diesel-powered heater, cabin lighting, a refrigerator, and some fancy gadgets. Undoubtedly, VW wants to make sure this is the go-to car for the campers around the world.

However, it turns out that VW may want more than just to make its car dreamy. To make sure its camper van could be the most unique and distinguishable product in the market, in December 21, 2018, VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (hereafter “Applicant”) filed trademark application for “6.1” (Application No. 107082633, see below) in Taiwan. In January 15, 2020, Taiwan’s Intellectual Property Office (“IPO”) said “No.”

The reasons held by IPO are that:

1.     Article 29.1.3 of Taiwan’s Trademark Law provides that a trademark shall not be registered if such mark consists exclusively of signs which are devoid of any distinctiveness. According to IPO’s Guideline for Determining Trademark’s Distinctiveness, pure number, in principle, shall not be distinctive. It is because based on the common usage, number is used to describe the year (e.g., wine), the size (e.g., shoes), the volume (e.g., sheets of tissue paper), the speed (e.g., the memory card), or the power (e.g., engine) of a product, and is less likely to be conceived as the source of goods or service.

2.     Here, upon reviewing the material of trademark use submitted by the Applicant, the mark “6.1” is used in combination with the brand name “Volkswagen” and the model name “California”. As such, when seeing “Volkswagen California 6.1” in its entirety, ordinary consumers are more inclined to view “Volkswagen”, instead of “6.1”, as the mark to identify the source of goods.

3.     Although the Applicant argued that it is rare for automaker to use number with decimal point to describe the product, the IPO found it unpersuasive. In the submitted material, the IPO found the Applicant used number like “T6” and “T6.1” to identify the different versions of its updated vehicles, rather than the source of product supplier. Hence, IPO considered Applicant’s mark “6.1” not distinctive, and is simply used to describe the “version” of Applicant’s upgraded vehicle.

4.     The Applicant further argued that the mark has acquired distinctiveness through its continuous use and wide media coverage. Nevertheless, the IPO found no relevant evidence, such as survey data, advertising documents, sales records, etc., showing the sole use of “6.1” by the Applicant is sufficient to create distinctiveness among the relevant consumers. Therefore, the IPO ruled the trademark application for “6.1” should be denied.

It remains to be seen if VW will contest such decision, and whether there will be more evidence submitted to support VW’s arguments regarding acquired distinctiveness.

Source: https://twtmsearch.tipo.gov.tw/OS0/OS0401_SCN3.jsp?issueNo=XpJ13RyT4ck1hRzRLV2RtMFEwVysrbGdxcU1tQT09&l6=zh_TW&isReadBulletinen_US=true&isReadBulletinzh_TW=true 

未經Kobe Bryant同意，任何人不得將「Black Mamba」作為商標申請註冊

台灣知名職業賽車手林沅滸於民國（下同）105年4月21日以「Blcakmamba設計字」（參下圖）向經濟部智慧財產局（下稱「智慧局」）申請商標註冊，並指定使用於商品及服務分類表第25類之衣服、T恤、摩托車騎士服、汽車駕駛服裝、運動服、運動鞋等，經智慧局審查後，於105年11月16日核准，列為註冊第1804197號商標（下稱「系爭商標」）。

美商柯比公司於106年2月15日以系爭商標違反商標法第30條第1項第11~13款之規定為由，對之提起異議。經智慧局審查後，認為系爭商標有商標法第30條第1項第13款規定之適用，撤銷原處分，林沅滸不服向智慧財產法院提起訴訟，惟智慧財產法院最後仍維持智慧局撤銷系爭商標註冊之決定。

智慧財產法院認定：

101年7月1日施行之商標法第30條第1項第13款規定：「商標有下列情形之一，不得註冊：有他人之肖像或著名之姓名、藝名、筆名、字號者，但經其同意申請註冊者，不在此限」。又該款所定之「藝名」並未限於影視娛樂演藝人員之假名、別名，職業運動之運動員，堪稱係參加具有表演技藝性質之運動賽事，應屬以表演運動技藝為職業之「藝人」，其使用本名以外之別名、暱稱或球衣編號等稱謂，性質上仍屬商標法第30條第1項第13款所規定之「藝名」。

系爭商標雖係由呈攻擊狀之抽象蛇設計圖案與略有設計之外文「Black Mamba」所組成，惟該抽象蛇設計圖案融合於外文「Black Mamba」中，整體予人寓目印象，仍未脫離文字印象之外文「Black Mamba」。

又依美商柯比公司提供的資料可知，效力美國職業籃球聯賽（NBA）洛杉磯湖人隊的知名球星「Kobe Bryant」，因在球場上具攻擊性、移動速度快及靈敏之表現特質，恰似非洲移動速度最快之「Black Mamba」毒蛇，故自99年6月起，「Kobe Bryant」官方臉書或各大媒體，在報導、介紹、討論其球場表現、退休或球衣相關商品時，即以「Black Mamba」、「黑曼巴」指稱「Kobe Bryant」 作為其外號、別名、藝名，而足已引起國內消費者（觀眾）之高度注意，國內相關消費者見標示有「Black Mamba」字樣之商品亦會認為與「Kobe Bryant」有關，堪認系爭商標於105年4月21日申請時，「Black Mamba」已為表演運動技藝為職業之藝人「Kobe Bryant」於其從事表演性籃球比賽時所被稱呼之藝名，且「Black Mamba」客觀上亦僅指向「Kobe Bryant」1人，國內相關消費者可直接聯想與「Kobe Bryant」有關，並已達國內著名程度。因此，任何人未得Kobe Bryant同意前，不得將「Black Mamba」作為商標申請註冊。

林沅滸雖稱車迷常以「Black Mamba」作為其暱稱或藝名，系爭商標係發想於自己的藝名，然其所提出所謂暱稱資料僅係一紙網路社群資料，別無其他相關報導或易為人知之宣傳資料，以此尚難證明於系爭商標註冊時，「Black Mamba」必然係指向林沅滸，故其主張不足可採。

綜上所陳，智慧財產法院係依前述理由，維持智慧局有關撤銷系爭商標註冊之決定，惟林沅滸仍可向最高行政法院提起上訴。

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)

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