Taiwan’s IP Office cancelled trademark featuring bat silhouette in view of opposition filed by DC Comics

On February 23, 2022, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) sided with DC Comics in its opposition against trademark no. 02100701, finding the contested trademark is filed out of registrant’s intent to imitate DC Comics’ famous bat emblem (see below).

 

The contested trademark (see below) was filed on June 17, 2020, and granted on November 16, 2020, designated for use in goods under class 18, such as backpack, shoe bag, suitcase, shopping bag, trekking poles, umbrellas, etc. 

DC Comics filed opposition on February 17, 2021, contending the registration of the contested trademark violated Article 30.1.12 of Trademark Law, which provides that a mark shall not be registered if such a mark is:1) being identical with or similar to another person’s earlier used trademark, and 2) to be applied for goods or services identical with or similar to those for which the earlier used trademark is applied, 3) 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.

 

Here, TIPO finds for DC Comics based on the following reasons:

1.    Based on evidence submitted by DC Comics, it is clear and undisputed that DC Comics’ Bat Emblem has been put in used on various kinds of products since as early as 1997, including, among the others, clothing, hats, backpacks, shoes, and umbrellas that feature the well-known Bat Emblem. Thus, there is no doubt that DC Comics’ Bat Emblem is an earlier used trademark.

2.    TIPO also notes that both trademarks feature bat silhouettes, which constitute the dominant portion of the trademarks. In addition, TIPO considers the overall contour and the style of the bat silhouette presented in the contested trademark are highly similar with those presented in DC Comics’ Bat Emblem. In other words, the contested trademark is visually and conceptually similar with DC Comics’ Bat Emblem. 

3.    Further, TIPO is aware that the contested trademark is applied for use in goods that is similar with or relevant to products in which DC Comics’ Bat Emblem is applied for use. It is likely that consumers would perceive products bearing the contested trademark to be associated with product supplied by DC Comics.

4.    Considering the facts that DC Comics has put its Bat Emblem in use for a very long time, and that the Bat Emblem is distinctive and has become well-known among the relevant consumers and fans, TIPO is of the view that it is unlikely that the registrant would file application for such a highly similar trademark out of pure coincidence. As such, TIPO determines that the total circumstances justify a finding of registrant’s intent to imitate DC Comics’ Bat Emblem, and that the contested trademark should be cancelled in view of Article 30.1.12 of Trademark Law.

 

Source:

https://twtmsearch.tipo.gov.tw/OS0/OS0401_SCN3.jsp?issueNo=XpJ13RyT4SVhrTWdLcGlIQlhReUlOYThiUElaUT09&l6=zh_TW&isReadBulletinen_US=&isReadBulletinzh_TW=true

“KOKOHOM” found confusingly similar with Chanel’s famous “COCO” trademark

On January 28, 2022, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) cancelled “KOKOHOM” over Chanel’s opposition, finding the registration of “KOKOHOM” trademark would cause confusion with Chanel’s well-known trademarks “COCO” (Reg. No 624792, 670814, and 859991, see below).

The application of the contested trademark, “KOKOHOM” (Reg. N0. 02147746, see below), was filed on January 20, 2021, and granted on June 16, 2021, designated for use in goods under Class 25, including, among the others, underwear, skirt, casual wear, pants, pajamas, etc. Chanel filed opposition on September 14, 2021, arguing the registration of “KOKOHOM” would violate Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Law. 

 

In its determination, TIPO found in Chanel’s favor, reasoning that:

1.    Firstly, “KOKOHOM” is verbally similar with “COCO”. While there is additional word “HOM” presented, TIPO considers “HOM” would be perceived as “HOME”, which carries the meaning of ‘HOME Page“. As such, consumers are inclined to perceive “HOM” as descriptive, and “KOKO” would constitute the dominant part of the contested trademark. In this light, TIPO opines there is medium degree of similarity between “KOKOHOM” and “COCO”.

2.    Turning to the similarity of the designated goods, TIPO notes that “KOKOHOM” is applied for use in apparels, which are similar with the products that Chanel’s cited trademarks are designated for use. For example, Chanel’s “COCO” is also applied for use in clothings, sweater, pants, gloves, etc., which serve similar or associated function. Thus, TIPO determines that “KOKOHOM” is applied for use in products that are similar with those designated by Chanel’s “COCO”. 

3.    Furthermore, TIPO recognizes that Chanel’s “COCO” is distinctive and has become well-known among the relevant consumers. In comparison with the voluminous records of trademark use submitted by Chanel, there is little evidence submitted to support the recognizability of “KOKOHOM”. Thus, TIPO considers “COCO” is more distinctive and the relevant consumers are more familiar with “COCO.”

4.    In light of the above, since consumers are more familiar with “COCO”, there is medium degree of similarity between “KOKOHOM” and “COCO”, and both “KOKOHOM” and “COCO” are applied for use in similar products, it is likely that consumers may be misled into believing that products bearing “KOKOHOM” and “COCO” are from the same source. Hence, TIPO determines that the registration of “KOKOHOM” might cause confusion with “COCO”, and should be cancelled accordingly.

 

https://twtmsearch.tipo.gov.tw/OS0/OS0401_SCN3.jsp?issueNo=XpJ13RyT4ZjlxN2RzTUo3d2kzdW93Vms0WXBWUT09&l6=zh_TW&isReadBulletinen_US=&isReadBulletinzh_TW=true

HP successfully protected its rectangle enterprise logo in trademark opposition before Taiwan’s IP Office

HP HEWLETT PACKARD GROUP LLC (“HP”), the trademark registrant of series of HP enterprise logos in Taiwan (Reg. No. 01809596, 01813821, 01809595, 01809598, 01809597, 01859408, and 01997897, see below), filed opposition against registered trademark no. 02054693 on July 16, 2020, alleging the contested registration would cause confusion with HP’s famous rectangle logo.

The contested trademark, “OneDegree” (see below), was filed by AI FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGY HOLDING COMPANY (“AIF”) on September 20, 2019, and granted on April 16, 2020, designated for use in services under class 42, including “cloud computing, websites building and maintaining, computer software maintenance, software as a service (SaaS), telecommunications technology consulting, computer technology consulting, network security consulting, computer software design, server hosting, and computer software consulting.”

 On January 26, 2022, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) sided with HP, finding the contested registration shall be cancelled based on Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Law:

 

1.      Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Law provides that a mark shall not be registered if such a mark is:

1)      being identical with or similar to another person’s registered trademark or earlier filed trademark; and

2)      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

3)      hence there exists a likelihood of confusion on relevant consumers.

2.      Here, TIPO first finds AIF’s contested trademark is similar with HP’s rectangle logo. Both trademarks feature a rectangular frame, and place the words under the featured rectangle. While there is a decorative dot displayed in the contested trademark, TIPO considers such element is too minor to make the contested trademark distinguishable from HP’s asserted trademarks. Overall, the contested trademark is found similar with the HP’s asserted trademarks.

3.      TIPO also notes that HP’s asserted trademarks are designated for use in similar products or services. For example, HP’s trademarks No. 01809596, 01813821, and 01809595 are applied for use in device like communication and internet hardware; and services like cloud computing service, software design, and information technology consulting. TIPO considers these services provide functions that are similar with or supplemental to those as designated by AIF’s contested trademark. Thus, TIPO determines that AIF’s contested trademark is applied for use in services that are similar with or identical to those as designated by HP’s asserted trademarks.

4.      TIPO further notes that evidence has shown that since 2015, HP’s asserted trademarks have been put in use in HP’s various kinds of services, and were subject to continuous and wide media exposure, such as IT PRO Magazine, X Fastest News, DIGITIMES, etc. Thus, TIPO is convinced that HP’s distinctive rectangle logo has established stronger recognizability among the relevant consumers.

5.      In view of the above, considering that the relevant consumers are more familiar with HP’s trademarks, that AIF’s contested trademark does demonstrate certain degree of similarity with HP’s trademarks, and that both trademarks are applied for use in similar services, TIPO rules that AIF’s contested trademark may cause confusion among the relevant consumers. As a result, the contested trademark should be cancelled per Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Law.   

                                                                                                    

https://twtmsearch.tipo.gov.tw/OS0/OS0401_SCN3.jsp?issueNo=XpJ13RyT4WXBMRUdPOEMrWFd0WDhEN3c1TVpUZz09&l6=zh_TW&isReadBulletinen_US=&isReadBulletinzh_TW=true

Victoria Beckham’s opposition against another registered “VB” trademark in Taiwan fell short

On March 31, 2018, Victoria Beckham (“Opposer”), the founder of her eponymous fashion brand “VB”, filed trademark opposition against Reg. No. 01888812, alleging that said registration violates Article 30.1.11 and Article 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

 

The contested trademark, the No. 01888812 trademark (see below), was filed on July 19, 2017, and granted on January 1, 2018, designated for use in hair oil, lotion, toner, perfume, lipstick, nail polish, etc. The Opposer contended that the registration of the contested trademark would cause confusion with the Opposer’s well-known “VB” brand, and that the application of the contested trademark is based on intent to imitate the Opposer’s famous brand.

On December 29, 2021, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) did not side with the Opposer, finding that:

1.     To prove violation of Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act, the Opposer has to show that the alleged trademark has obtained well-known status before the filing date of the contested trademark. While there is evidence showing the use of Opposer’s brand “VB” on cosmetic products (such as “VB x Estee Lauder”) and in magazine’s news coverage (such as VOGUE, ELLE, etc.), the volume and duration of such use is insufficient to prove that prior to the filing date of the contested trademark, Opposer’s “VB” brand has been famous among the general public. 

2.     As to Opposer’s contention regarding violation of Article 30.1.12 of Trademark Act, there must be evidence showing that the application of the contested trademark is made based on intent to imitate the earlier used trademark. Here, TIPO agrees that the contested trademark is similar with the Opposer’s brand “VB” and is applied for use in similar cosmetic product. However, the registrant of the contested trademark argued that she has obtained another registered trademark “Vivian Beauty Spa” (Reg. No. 01718900) in 2015, and that she further registered the contested trademark because she considered “VB” as the combination of initials of “Vivian Beauty”. TIPO finds registrant’s aforesaid explanation reasonable, and thus did not find registrant’s filing of the contested trademark based on intent to imitate Opposer’s brand name.

 

In view of the above, the Opposer’s opposition is denied accordingly.

 

Source: https://twtmsearch.tipo.gov.tw/OS0/OS0401_SCN3.jsp?issueNo=XpJ13RyT4VmQweDNjMWJCY0RETXFVNktzdnJCdz09&l6=zh_TW&isReadBulletinen_US=&isReadBulletinzh_TW=true

PayPal successfully challenged “PAYPAYCLOUD” in its trademark opposition before Taiwan’s IP Office

On March 16, 2020, PayPal Inc. (“PayPal”), the registrant of series “PayPal” and “PAYPAL” trademarks in Taiwan (Reg. No. 00191043, 00191961, 01257705, 01354987, 01766166, and 02046601, see below), filed opposition against Paypaycloud Fintech Co. Ltd. (“PFC”), alleging that the registration of PFC’s trademark would cause confusion with PayPal’s aforesaid famous trademarks.

The contested trademark, PFC’s No. 02030281 trademark (see below), was filed on March 15, 2019, and granted on December 16, 2019, designated for use in services under class 35, including department store, convenience store, establishing computer information database, management of computer files and database, maintenance and renewal of registered data, online shopping, etc.

On December 29, 2021, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) found in PayPal’s favor, determining that PFC’s “PAYPAYCLOUD” trademark violates Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Law. The reasons held by TIPO are as follows:

1.      Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Law provides that a trademark shall not be registered if such a trademark is 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.

2.      Based on the evidence submitted by PayPal, including the worldwide trademark registrations of “PayPal” and “PAYPAL”, the adoption of PayPal’s service in a wide range of local businesses, including the popular B2B online trading platform TaiwanTrade, and the relevant news reports, TIPO is convinced that PayPal’s cited trademarks are well-known in the area of third-party payment service.

3.      As to similarity, TIPO notes that “PAYPAYCLOUD” would be perceived as combination of “Pay”, “Pay”, and “Cloud”. Since “Cloud” carries the meaning of cloud service, it would be less distinctive when being used in service like computer database. Accordingly, “PAYPAY” would constitute the dominant portion of PFC’s contested trademark, and TIPO opines that no matter it is “PayPal” or “PAYPAL”, they are both similar with “PAYPAY”.

4.      In addition, TIPO finds that PFC’s contested trademark is applied for use in service that is similar with or relevant to the designated service of PayPal’s well-known trademarks, because the latter is used to facilitate the former, and both services are related to meeting consumer’s demands for processing online transaction and payment.  

5.      TIPO also finds that “PayPal” as a trademark is highly unique, since it is not a mere combination of common words. Further, TIPO notes that through PayPal’s continuous use and marketing, “PayPal” has achieved the status of well-known trademark and the consumers would be more familiar with PayPal’s trademark.

 

In view of the above, considering that “PAYPAYCLOUD” is similar with “PayPal”, that it is applied for use in similar services, that “PayPal” and “PAYPAL” are well-known, and that consumers are more familiar with PayPal’s famous trademarks, TIPO determines that registration of PFC’s contested trademark might cause confusion with PayPal’s well-known trademarks. Therefore, “PAYPAYCLOUD” is cancelled by TIPO in view of violation of Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Law.

 

Source:

https://twtmsearch.tipo.gov.tw/OS0/OS0401_SCN3.jsp?issueNo=XpJ13RyT4VzlsZ3RpVWRvdyt4Um9yc1NaeW9BQT09&l6=zh_TW&isReadBulletinen_US=&isReadBulletinzh_TW=true 

Conde Nast successfully challenged the trademark registration of “VOGUE BEAUTY” in Taiwan’s IP Office

Conde Nast ASIA/PACIFIC, INC. (“Conde Nast”), the registrant of trademarks no. 01307044 and 00949897 (see below), filed opposition against CHUNG WEI BIOMEDICAL CO., LTD. (“CWB”) on March 15, 2021, alleging that CWB’s trademark “VOGUE BEAUTY” should be cancelled for causing confusion with Conde Nast’s famous “VOGUE” trademarks.

 

The contested trademark, CWB’s “VOGUE BEAUTY”, was filed for registration on April 14, 2020, and granted December 16, 2020 (Reg. No. 02109293, see below), designated for use in rental service for e-book reader under class 41. Conde Nast contended that registration of “VOGUE BEAUTY” violates, among the others, Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Law, which provides that a mark shall not be registered if such a mark is 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.

 Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) sided with Conde Nast on November 25, 2021, finding that registration of “VOUGE BEAUTY” should be cancelled for being confusingly similar with Conde Nast’s “VOGUE” trademarks:

 

1.    Similarity of Trademark:

TIPO finds CWB’s “VOGUE BEAUTY” similar with Conde Nast’s “VOGUE”. Although “VOGUE” and “BEAUTY” are common words with ordinary meanings, TIPO opines that when viewing “VOGUE BEAUTY”, consumers would not consider such combination of words creates unique meaning. Since both “VOGUE BEAUTY” and “VOGUE” share the same word “VOGUE”, CWB’s contested trademark is considered visually and verbally similar with Conde Nast’s “VOGUE”.

2.    Similarity of goods and services

TIPO notes that CWB’s “VOGUE BEAUTY” is designated for use in rental service for e-book reader, while Conde Nast’s “VOGUE” are designated for use in products like “electronic publication” and “books and magazines downloadable from internet”, which seem to be different from each other. However, in view of the trend of digitization of publications, the use of e-book will only become more and more popular. Under this context, TIPO finds that the products designated by Conde Nast’s “VOGUE” (i.e., electronic publication and downloadable books) may be provided through using the service designated by CWB’s “VOGUE BEAUTY” (i.e., rental service for e-book reader). To this respect, the designated products and service actually serve the same or relevant purpose for consumers. Thus, TIPO considers the services designated by CWB’s trademark somewhat associated with the products designated by Conde Nast’s “VOGUE”.

3.    Strength of the trademark:

TIPO further finds that based on the evidence of profound use of Conde Nast’s “VOGUE” trademark, including the successful and continuous publishing of the world-wide famous fashion magazine “VOGUE”, and the development of its associated cosmetic and beauty service, Conde Nast’s alleged trademarks have become famous among the relevant consumers.

 

In view of the above, considering that Conde Nast’s “VOGUE” is well-known, that CWB’s “VOGUE BEAUTY” is similar with Conde Nast’s “VOGUE”, that CWB’s “VOGUE” is applied for use in associated services, and that consumers are more familiar with Conde Nast’s famous “VOGUE” trademark, TIPO determines that registration of CWB’s “VOGUE BEAUTY” would cause confusion with Conde Nast’s famous “VOGUE” trademarks. As a result, TIPO rules that CWB’s “VOGUE BEAUTY” should be cancelled accordingly.

 

Source: https://twtmsearch.tipo.gov.tw/OS0/OS0401_SCN3.jsp?issueNo=XpJ13RyT4ZjRRYmxtZWNQa2cwVysrbGdxcU1tQT09&l6=zh_TW&isReadBulletinen_US=&isReadBulletinzh_TW=true 

Taiwan’s IP Office found there would be no confusion between “MediaTek Turing” and “NVIDIA TURING”

On June 16, 2020, NVIDIA CORPORATION (“NVIDIA”), the registrant of trademark no. 02070494 (see below), filed opposition against MediaTek Inc. (“MediaTek”), alleging that the registration of MediaTek’s “MediaTek Turing” shall be cancelled due to violation of Article 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Law.

The challenged trademark, “MediaTek Turing” (Reg. No. 02049241, see below), was filed on October 3, 2019, and granted on March 16, 2020, designated for use in goods under class 9 (e.g., semiconductor, integrated circuits, chipset, printed circuit boards, computer programs, computer software, etc.) and services under class 42 (e.g., computer software design, integrated circuit design, software design for artificial intelligence, etc.).

On November 26, 2021, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) sided with MediaTek, finding the registration of “MediaTek Turing” would not cause confusion with “NVIDIA TURING”:

1.    NVIDIA argued that both “MediaTek Turing” and “NVIDIA TURING” share the word “Turing/TURING”, so the degree of similarity between “MediaTek Turing” and “NVIDIA TURING” should be quite high. MediaTek countered that “TURING” in general would be perceived as the name of the well-known computer scientist Mr. Alan Mathison Turing, so the word “TURING” should not be distinctive if being used for the designated goods under class 9 and services under class 42, which are related to computer technology and design of algorithm.

2.    TIPO found for MediaTek, finding that the word “TURING” would not be distinctive when being used in the designated goods and services, and that consumers would find the initial words in both trademarks, namely, “NVIDIA” and “MediaTek”, more distinctive and appealing. In other words, consumers would view the trademarks in their entirety, which include “NVIDIA” and “MediaTek”, rather than focus only on “Turing” and “TURING”, to identify the source of the provided goods and services. Thus, TIPO posited that consumers would not find “MediaTek Turing” and “NVIDIA TURING” similar with each other.

3.    NVIDIA also argued that when MediaTek filed its application for “MediaTek Turing” on October 3, 2019, “NVIDIA TURING” has already been a famous trademark. To this end, TIPO noted that the evidence submitted by NVIDIA did show that “NVIDIA” as a trademark has been put in use and well-known among the relevant consumers. However, there is less evidence showing “NVIDIA TURING” has gained the same well-known status. More evidence, such as sales records showing the revenue of products bearing the trademark “NVIDIA TURING” and the corresponding market share of these products, is needed.

TIPO agreed that the designated products and services of “MediaTek Turing” are similar with those of “NVIDIA TURING”. Nonetheless, considering the facts that “MediaTek Turing” and “NVIDIA TURING” are both distinctive, that consumers would not find “MediaTek Turing” and “NVIDIA TURING” similar with each other, and that evidence is insufficient to prove “NVIDIA TURING” as a trademark has obtained well-known status when “MediaTek Turing” was filed for application, TIPO determined that the registration of “MediaTek Turing” would not cause confusion with “NVIDIA TURING”, and thus there is no violation of the cited Trademark Law. 

Source: https://twtmsearch.tipo.gov.tw/OS0/OS0401_SCN3.jsp?issueNo=XpJ13RyT4VlBKdWh4MFpLM0gyZm1UbmdtaTBJUT09&l6=zh_TW&isReadBulletinen_US=&isReadBulletinzh_TW=true