Prada prevailed in Petitions and Appeals Committee for its “MIU MIU” trademark

On May 14, 2025, the Petitions and Appeals Committee of Taiwan’s Ministry of Economic Affairs (“Committee”) affirmed the determination of Taiwan’s Intellectual Property Office (“TIPO”), finding the contested trademark “NIUNIU” may cause confusion with Prada’s iconic brand “MIU MIU” (No. 00163308 and No. 00836654, see below).

The contested trademark, “NIUNIU” (No. 02256501, see below) was filed on March 7, 2022, and granted on October 16, 2022, designated for use in goods in Class 25, including various kinds of underwear and accessories, such as bras, corsets, heating garments, women’s apparel, lingerie, etc. 

Prada filed opposition against “NIUNIU” on January 13, 2023, contending that registration of “NIUNIU” would cause confusion with its famous “MIU MIU” trademark. TIPO sided with Prada on December 31, 2024, finding “NIUNIU” confusingly similar to Prada’s “MIU MIU” trademark, and ordering cancellation of “NIUNIU” based on Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act. Registrant of “NIUNIU” appealed, arguing TIPO was erroneous in finding similarity between the two trademarks, that the sales channels and targeted customers of “NIUNIU” are different, and that consumers should be able to distinguish the two trademarks given that “NIUNIU” has become a popular brand.

The Committee upheld TIPO’s decision, finding no error in TIPO’s determination:

1.        On similarity, the Committee ruled that both trademarks are made up by two same words, with minor differences in the font, space, and the initial letters. Besides, pronunciations of letters “N” and “M” both require nasal sound. The Committee found that TIPO was correct in finding visual and verbal similarity between “NIUNIU” and “MIU MIU.”

2.        On similarity of designated products, “MIU MIU” were designated for apparel, footwear, and the relevant accessories, which serve functions or purposes that are related to or overlapping with those of designated products of “NIUNIU”. While the registrant of “NIUNIU” argued that the sales channels of “NUINIU” are on-line network, and the products of “MIU MIU” are mainly supplied in physical stores, such variance is not sufficient to negate the relevancy of the designated products between the two trademarks. Besides, Prada did submit evidence showing that its products are also available via online store, the Committee found TIPO committed no error in its decision.

3.        The Committee further noted that there was voluminous evidence supporting the well-known status of “MIU MIU”, and agreed that on the filing date of “NIUNIU”, “MIU MIU” as a trademark has been well-known. The registrant argued that its “NIUNIU”, similarly, is famous among the relevant consumers. The Committee disagreed, determining that the evidence produced by “NIUNIU” lacked the backing of evidence like market share, sales revenue, and invoices. Thus, the Committee ruled that consumers should be more familiar with “MIU MIU”, and that Prada’s cited trademark should be awarded with greater protection than “NIU NIU”. 

4.        In view of the above, given the similarities of trademarks, relatedness of the designated products, fame of “MIU MIU”, and consumers’ familiarity, the Committee concluded that TIPO was correct in finding likelihood of confusion between “NIUNIU” and “MIU MIU”. TIPO’s determination was therefore upheld by the Committee.

 

Source: 

The Committee’s decision

https://pamsdmz.moea.gov.tw/pams-public/api/download/20250524_decisionDownload-A211401030_175321_611_GYwd22c8xC/

TIPO’s decision: 

https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNWI%2BOrAMwco%2FunxmxCMXMZuTh2cgQ44wqH

Ralph Lauren Wins in Taiwan Against Parallel Importer for Unfair Free-Riding

On April 30, 2025, Taiwan’s Intellectual Property and Commercial Court (“IPC Court”) ruled in the favor of The Polo/Lauren Company L.P. (“Ralph Lauren”), finding that although the apparel brand’s trademark rights were exhausted, the parallel importer’s use and presentation of the famous logo “POLO RALPH LAUREN” still constituted unfair free-riding and therefore violated Taiwan’s Fair Trade Act. 

Ralph Lauren sued Jie Sin Trading Co. Ltd. (“Jie Sin”), an importer of foreign brands, for trademark infringement and unfair competition in 2022. According to Ralph Lauren, Jie Sin, without proper license or permission, used Ralph Lauren’s famous trademarks “POLO RALPH LAUREN” (no. 00069730, no. 01686231, and no. 01737294, see below) without authorization in the sale of polo shirts in Jie Sin’s physical store located in S-Outlet, a shopping mall operated by co- defendant ESSE Commerce Development Inc. Ralph Lauren argued that such use would likely cause confusion, and was both deceptive and unfair.

Jie Sin contended that it is a parallel importer lawfully reselling genuine apparel products. All of the clothing sold at its S-Outlet store, according to Jie Sin, was sourced from Ralph Lauren in other countries. Besides, Jie Sin had placed its brand “JS’Maxx” on the store’s signage and banners showing “POLO RALPH LAUREN”, which should be sufficient to help the consumers identify the true source and avoid confusion.

The IPC Court rejected Ralph Lauren’s trademark infringement claim, but found that Jie Sin’s conduct amounted to unfair free-riding:

1.        On the trademark claim, the IPC Court elaborated that per Article 36 of Trademark Act, a trademark owner could not assert trademark right over products that have been lawfully placed in the market by itself or with its consent. Moreover, Taiwan adopts the doctrine of international exhaustion. Unless exceptional circumstances apply, a parallel importer’s resale of genuine products is generally exempt from trademark liability. 

2.        Here, the products sold in Jie Sin’s store were genuine Ralph Lauren apparel purchased abroad and imported into Taiwan. Although Jie Sin’s use of “POLO RALPH LAUREN” constituted trademark use, Ralph Lauren’s trademark rights on these products were deemed exhausted per Article 36 of Trademark Act.

3.        Having said the above, the IPC Court held that Jie Sin’s use of Ralph Lauren’s famous trademarks violated Article 25 of Fair Trade Act. More specifically, according to the guidelines issued by Fair Trade Commission, a parallel importer, even when selling genuine products, must not act in any way that may mislead ordinary consumers to believe that it is the authorized agent or distributor of the brand.

4.        Based on the submitted evidence, although Jie Sin included its logo “JS’Maxx” on the store’s signage, the mark was not as prominent or visible as the eye-catching “POLO RALPH LAUREN” brand. Further, the design of counter, shop window, and product display resembled those of a Ralph Lauren store. Under such circumstance, Jie Sin’s use of the famous “POLO RALPH LAUREN” trademark would mislead ordinary consumers to believe that Jie Sin’s sale of products are licensed by Ralph Lauren, which constitutes a free-ride on Ralph Lauren’s goodwill and reputation. 

(Source: https://2hyperlife.com/shinysun2022/)

Accordingly, the IPC Court ruled that Jie Sin shall cease using Ralph Lauren’s well-known trademarks and pay Ralph Lauren damages proportionate to the profits it earned through its unfair competition. 

 

Source: 111 Ming-Shan-Su-Zi No. 57 https://judgment.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD/data.aspx?ty=JD&id=IPCV,111%2c%e6%b0%91%e5%95%86%e8%a8%b4%2c57%2c20250430%2c1

Source: S-Outlet: https://www.s-outlet.com.tw/dm.php?i=181

Petitions and Appeals Committee Affirms Cancellation of Trademark Confusingly Similar to River Light’s “TT” Logo

On March 21, 2025, the Petitions and Appeals Committee of the Ministry of Economic Affairs (the “Committee”) sided with fashion brand River Light V L.P. (“River Light”), affirming the finding of Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) that the registered trademark no. 02285492 (“the ‘492 mark”) should be canceled due to confusion with River Light’s well-known “TT” logo (see below).

The contested trademark, no. 02285492 (see below), was filed by Sachia Nail Ltd. (“Sachia”), designated for use in goods in Class 3, covering non-human use cleanser, mouthwash, air freshener, and pet wash. River Light filed opposition on October 11, 2023. TIPO sided with River Light on October 30, 2024, finding Sachia’s 492 mark confusingly similar to River Light’s “TT” logo. Sachia challenged TIPO’s determination to the Committee.

Before the Committee, Sachia particularly argued the following:

1.        The orientations of the two “T”s in the ‘492 mark differ from those in River Light’s “TT” logo.

2.        River Light’s “TT” trademark is well-known in categories such as shoes, bags, apparel, and cosmetics, which are dissimilar to the goods covered by the ‘492 mark. 

3.        The documents submitted by River Light are insufficient to prove the well-known status of River Light’s “TT”.

The Committee rejected Sachia’s arguments based on the following reasons:

1.      On the well-known status of River Light’s “TT” logo, the Committee found River Light has provided sufficient evidence to prove the fame of its “TT” logo. River Light demonstrated continuous and extensive use of its Tory Burch brand, including the sales of fashionable items like shoes, bags, perfume, and sunglasses in major local department stores; widespread media exposures, marketing efforts, and the successful trademark registrations in numerous countries. The Committee affirmed TIPO’s determination that River Light’s “TT” logo is well-known when Sachia filed the application for the ‘492 mark.

2.        On similarity, the Committee noted that the two Ts in the ‘492 mark are left-right symmetrical, which is different from River Light’s up-down symmetrical. However, such difference is minor, and ordinary consumers would perceive “T”s as the dominant elements in both Sachia’s ‘492 mark and River Light’s “TT” logo. There is high degree of visual and conceptual similarity between the two trademarks.

3.        On the relatedness of the designated goods, the Committee acknowledged that River Light’s “TT” covers cosmetics, perfume, and fashionable items. However, the Committee elaborated that mouthwash and air refresher, like cosmetics and perfume, serve personal hygiene and deodorization purposes. Furthermore, non-human cleanser may be seen as related to the maintenance of fashionable bags and apparel. As such, it is not erroneous for TIPO to find relatedness between the designated products.

4.        In sum, considering the similarity between the two trademarks, the relatedness of the products, the well-known status of River Light’s “TT” logo, and the facts that ordinary consumers are more familiar with River Light’s “TT” logo, the Committee concluded that registration of ‘492 trademark does violate Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act. TIPO’s decision was therefore affirmed by the Committee.   

 

Source:

Committee’s determination: https://pamsdmz.moea.gov.tw/pams-public/api/download/20250503_decisionDownload-A211312007_184141_504_9EjjKw9WPZ/

TIPO’s determination: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/OS0/OS0401_SCN3.jsp?issueNo=XpJ13RyT4Z3dvTXRJZ2VLRlZBYjJBY3RCQjRyQT09&l6=zh_TW&isReadBulletinen_US=&isReadBulletinzh_TW=true

Taiwan's IP Office Rejects Prada's Opposition Against "jiu jiu" Trademark

On March 31, 2025, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) denied a trademark opposition filed by Prada against the registered trademark “jiu jiu”. TIPO found the contested trademark not confusingly similar to Prada’s “MIU MIU” trademark (no. 00832518, see below).

The contested trademark, “jiu jiu” (no. 02323938, see below), was filed by Home Product Inc. (“Home Product”) on February 3, 2023, and granted on October 1, 2023, designated for use in goods in class 3, including cosmetic cotton swabs, cotton pads, make-up removers, facial soap, baby soap, bath essences, bath gel, soap, natural essences, flower essences, etc. Prada filed opposition on December 28, 2023, citing violation of Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act.

TIPO ruled in the favor of Home Product, determining that there should be no confusion caused by registration of “jiu jiu”:

1.      Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act 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”.

2.      On the similarity of the trademarks, while both “jiu jiu” and “MIU MIU” consist of a word combination of two three-letter words, and both end with the letters “iu”, TIPO opined the difference in pronunciation (i.e., “/dʒju//dʒju/” vs. “/mju//mju/”) and visual impression caused by the initial letters (i.e., “j” vs. “M”) makes it unlikely for ordinary consumers to confuse Home Product’s contested trademark with that of Prada’s. The degree of similarity between the contested trademark and Prada’s cited trademark was deemed low.

3.      On the similarity of the designated products, TIPO agreed with Prada that the scope of products covered by Home Product’s “jiu jiu” overlaps with those designated by Prada’s “MIU MIU”, which also include various kinds of cosmetics and cleaning products, such as facial and body cleansers, soap, shampoo, conditioner, perfume, and essential oils.

4.      As to the distinctiveness of the trademarks, TIPO found both “jiu jiu” and “MIU MIU” quite distinctive, since both have no specific definition and are not related to the nature or function of the products they cover.

5.      On consumers’ familiarity, TIPO noted that the designated products of “jiu jiu” belong to the categories of personal hygiene and cosmetics. Although Prada did submit considerable evidence to prove the fame and recognition of the “MIU MIU” trademark, TIPO found the evidence mostly pertaining to Prada’s bags, shoes, apparel, and related accessories, not cosmetics and personal hygiene. Thus, TIPO was unable to determine if consumers in the relevant market were more familiar with Prada’s “MIU MIU” in relation to these specific goods.

6.      Based on the above, given the low degree of trademark similarity, the distinctiveness of the contested trademark, and the lack of evidence showing consumers’ familiarity with “MIU MIU” for the relevant product categories, TIPO concluded that the registration of Home Product’s “jiu jiu” would not cause confusion with Prada’s “MIU MIU”. Prada’s trademark opposition was denied accordingly.

 

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/OS0/OS0401_SCN3.jsp?issueNo=XpJ13RyT4RVNTWmFXK0gzNUsxd2FZUXVZV0NxZz09&l6=zh_TW&isReadBulletinen_US=&isReadBulletinzh_TW=true

Fashion brand “DIOR” prevailed in trademark opposition against “Diora”

On March 25, 2025, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) sided with Parfums Christian Dior (“Dior”), canceling the contested trademark “Diora” due to the likelihood of confusion with Dior’s iconic brand “DIOR” (see below).

The contested trademark, “Diora” (no. 02336174, see below), was filed by U.S. winery Delicato Vineyards LLC (“Delicato”) on April 14, 2023, and granted on November 16, 2023, designated for use on wine products. Dior filed opposition on February 2, 2024, citing violation of Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

TIPO ruled in Dior’s favor, finding that:

1.      Per Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act, a mark shall not be registered if such a mark is “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.      Regarding the fame of “DIOR”, based on Dior’s ongoing sales records, marketing materials, press releases, local news reports, social media campaigns, and prior supporting judicial and TIPO’s decisions, TIPO agreed with Dior that by the filing date of the contested trademark, “DIOR” had achieved well-known status among the relevant consumers in the cosmetic and fragrance markets.

3.      As for similarity, TIPO noted that the first four letters of the contested trademark are identical to “DIOR”, with minor differences in terms of the word case, font size, and the additional ending letter “a”. TIPO agreed with Dior that ordinary consumers would find “Diora” visually and verbally similar to “DIOR”.

4.      Although “DIOR” is originated from the name of Dior’s founder, TIPO noted that “DIOR” has obtained strong distinctiveness among consumers via Dior’s continuous and profound use in its cosmetic and perfume products. On the other hand, there was no evidence supporting the fame of or consumer familiarity with Delicato’s “Diora”. As such, based on the submitted evidence, TIPO opined that consumers should be more familiar with “DIOR”.

5.      Delicato argued that “Diora” is designated for use in wine products, so its goods did not overlap with those designated by “DIOR”. TIPO disagreed, elaborating that wine, cosmetics, and perfume are not, as Delicato contended, entirely unrelated. For example, TIPO noted that the leftover materials in the process of wine making, lees, are often used as ingredients for manufacturing cosmetic products, because of its rich antioxidants and polyphenols. Similarly, perfume has been commonly used in marketing and promoting wine products, such as wine pairing and perfume bartending. As such, consumers may still find the wine product designated by “Diora”, to a certain degree, related to Dior’s perfume and cosmetic products.  

6.      In view of the above, given the distinctiveness and well-known status of “DIOR”, the similarity between “DIOR” and “Diora”, the relatedness between the designated products, and the strong recognition among the relevant consumers, TIPO concluded that registration of Delicato’s “Diora” has violated Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act. Hence, the contested trademark was canceled accordingly.

 

Source:

https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOjCM8ToPsmGJyKrAyMg1Xzw3QxebXP

The Appeals and Petitions Committee of Taiwan’s MOEA Upholds Denial of Apple’s “APPLE AFTERBURNER” Trademark Application

On March 12, 2025, the Petitions and Appeals Committee of Ministry of Economic Affairs (“Committee”) affirmed the findings of Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”), concluding that Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) trademark application “APPLE AFTERBURNER” should be denied due to similarity with SEGA Corporation’s (“Sega”) “AFTER BURNER CLIMAX” and “AFTER BURNER” (no. 01213886 and no. 01213887, see below).

Apple Inc.’s application for “APPLE AFTERBURNER” (application no. 108070112, see below) was filed on October 25, 2019, designating computer cards used to accelerate video performance. Apple’s application was denied on September 26, 2024, by TIPO due to similarity with Sega’s aforesaid trademarks. Apple challenged TIPO’s denial to the Committee, arguing TIPO’s denial was erroneous in failing to take into consideration Apple’s strong brand, and that consumers are more familiar with Apple’s trademark.

The Committee found no error in TIPO’s decision to deny Apple’s trademark application:

1.      On similarity, the Committee agreed with TIPO that both Apple’s and Sega’s trademarks share the element “AFTERBURNER”, which is the dominant part of the trademarks. Although there are some differences such as the additional “APPLE” in Apple’s application, the space between “AFTER” and “BURNER” and the additional “CLIMAX” in Sega’s cited trademarks, these differences are deemed minor. The Committee opined that ordinary consumers would still consider “APPLE AFTERBURNER” conceptually, verbally, and visually similar to Sega’s “AFTER BURNER CLIMAX” and “AFTER BURNER”.

2.      The Committee further noted that Sega’s cited trademarks are registered for computer and video game software, which are related to the products designated in Apple’s trademark application. Both are peripheral products associated with computers that serve supplemental or associated purposes. Although Apple argued that the actual accelerator cards it supplies are only available to users of Apple’s Mac Pro products, making confusion unlikely. However, the Committee found such argument misplaced, emphasizing that when evaluating registrability of a trademark, the analysis of product similarity is based on the products designated in the trademark applicant, not the trademark applicant’s actual commercial practices. Apple’s arguments seemingly conflate the two.

3.      While Apple argued that its trademark is more famous and deserves stronger protection, the Committee found such contentions lack evidentiary support. Apple did submit some records, including news reports and product information. However, the Committee consider these records, at best, prove that Apple does supply accelerator card products, but insufficient to show the trademark “APPLE AFTERBURNER” has become well-known among the relevant consumers.

4.      In view of the above, given that the similarity between Apple’s “APPLE AFTERBURNER” and Sega’s cited trademarks is high, that Apple’s designated products overlap with those designated by Sega’s trademarks, and that Sega’s “AFTER BURNER” possesses considerable distinctiveness, the Committee concluded that allowing Apple’s trademark application may cause confusion with Sega’s cited trademarks. As such, the Committee dismissed Apple’s appeal.

 

Source:

TIPO’s denial:

https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/OS0/OS0401_SCN3.jsp?issueNo=XpJ13RyT4U1RnUnI4eThhVGgzaGpXRWZrVGd5dz09&l6=zh_TW&isReadBulletinen_US=true&isReadBulletinzh_TW=true

Committee’s decision:

https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/SS0/SS0201_SCN3.jsp?approNo=T0440508&docDate=114/03/13&type=1&l6=zh_TW&isReadBulletinen_US=true&isReadBulletinzh_TW=true

Taiwan Court Affirmed Burberry’s Victory in Trademark Infringement Action On Appeal

In its decision rendered on March 20, 2025, Taiwan’s Intellectual Property and Commercial Court (the “IPC Court”) sided with Burberry Limited, affirming that LAICARFORE FASHION CLOTHING LIMITED COMPANY (“Laicarfore”) and ANIDA INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD. (“Anida”) should be liable for infringing the fashion brand’s well-known stripes icon (no.00906192 and no. 00905930, see below).

The defendants, Laicarfore and Anida, are vendors of dresses, shirts, skirts, coats, pants, and the relevant accessories. According to the records, Laicarfore and Anida contracted with factories in China for the supply of apparel products, and then imported and resold them through their own online platform (https://www.laicarfore.com.tw/) under the brand “Anita Su x LaiCarFore”. In around October 2021, Burberry discovered that the defendants were selling clothing bearing similar stripes icon on its website (See below). 

Given that Laicarfore had been sued by and settled with Burberry for trademark infringement for a couple of times, and that Laicarfore once again breached its written promise not to infringe Burberry’s trademark, Burberry decided to sue both Laicarfore and Anida for damages in the IPC Court. On July 31, 2024, in the first instance level, the IPC Court ruled in Burberry’s favor, finding Laicarfore and Anida jointly liable for trademark infringement, and awarding Burberry NT$ 3.98 million as damages, including NT$ 3 million as liquidated damages. Both Laicarfore and Anida appealed.

On appeal, Laicarfore and Anida argued that the stripes displayed on their products should not constitute trademark use, and that consumers will not be confused. On March 20, 2025, the IPC Court affirmed the finding of infringement of trademark, but reduced the liquidated damages to NT$ 2 million, finding the original awarded damages too excessive. The total awarded compensation became around NT$2,98 million. The IPC Court’s reasons are as follows:

1.    By examining the stripes and patterns displayed on the accused products, it is clear to the IPC Court that the background color similarly is beige, and the arrangements of thick and thin stripes resemble Burberry’s way of arrangement of red, black, and white stripes. The overall visual impression of the icon presented on the accused products is similar to Burberry’s aforesaid famous stripes logo.

2.    While there are other decorative elements presented on the accused products, these elements are randomly placed and not located in the most dominant position. In other words, consumers would still consider the colorful stripes the most dominant elements in the accused products.

3.    Although Laicarfore and Anida contended that the way they presented the color stripes should not constitute trademark use, the IPC Court disagreed, noting that the colorful stripes were clearly shown on Laicarfore’s and Anida’s website, and visible to general consumers when they shopped and purchased the products. As such, there should be intents on the part of Laicarfore and Anida to attract consumers by using similar icons on the accused products, which should constitute act of trademark use.

4.    On issue of damages, after considering that the defendants have made partial payments to compensate Burberry, that the defendants’ illegal profits have been forfeited, and the actual damages incurred upon Burberry, the IPC Court opined that the original award of NT$ 3 million as liquidated damages was too excessive. As such, the IPC Court exercised its discretionary power under Article 252 of Civil Code and reduced the liquidated damages to NT$ 2 million only.

Source:

113-Ming-Shan-Shan-Zi No. 16 (IPC Court, March 20, 2025), see: https://judgment.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD/data.aspx?ty=JD&id=IPCV,113%2c%e6%b0%91%e5%95%86%e4%b8%8a%2c16%2c20250320%2c1

 

Article 252 of Civil Code: “If the agreed penalty is disproportionately high, the court may reduce it to a reasonable amount.”