Cummins Inc. prevailed in trademark opposition against Centrotherm International AG

On August 28, 2025, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) cancelled a contested trademark featuring the letter “C“, finding it confusingly similar to the iconic brand of Cummins Inc. (“Cummins”) (Reg. No. 00180008, see below)

The contested trademark, Reg. No. 02332870 (see below), was filed by Centrotherm International AG (“Centrotherm”) on February 13, 2023, and granted on November 1, 2023, designated for use in services in Class 37, including the maintenance, installation, and repair of solar battery, semiconductor, and related machines tool and parts. Cummins filed an opposition on January 22, 2024, alleging violations of Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of the Trademark Act.

On August 28, 2025, TIPO sided with Cummins, cancelling Centrotherm’s trademark based on Article 30.1.10:

1.     According to Article 30.1.10 of Trademark Act, a mark shall not be registered if such a mark is identical or similar to another’s registered mark, designated for use in identical or similar goods or services, and is therefore likely to cause confusion among the relevant consumers.

2.     Here, both Cummins’ and Centrotherm’s trademarks prominently featured the letter “C”, creating visual and conceptual similarity. While Centrotherm’s trademark used a red-and-white scheme and Cummins’ “C” included the embedded word “Cummins”, these differences were minor and did not reduce the degree of similarity between the two trademarks.

3.     On the designated services, TIPO noted that Cummins’ cited trademark covered maintenance and repair services for engines, generators, and the relevant parts. Since both Cummins’ and Centrotherm’s trademarks were used for the maintenance, installation, and repair services of machines in the related industries, TIPO considered consumers would view these services highly similar to each other.

4.     Further, TIPO recognized Cummins’ trademark as distinctive, and has established consistent and strong recognition in the market through continuous use since 1976. Although Cummins sometimes used the letter “C” in red and other times in black, TIPO considered the letter “C” to be the most dominant and recognizable element. 

5.     Centrotherm submitted evidence to prove its trademark has established strong recognition, and could co-exist with Cummins’ trademark without raising confusion. However, TIPO found these materials unpersuasive, as much of them were undated or failed to show the actual use of Centrotherm’s trademark.

6.     In light of the above, given the similarity between the trademarks, the relatedness of the designated services, and the strong brand recognition of Cummins’ trademark, TIPO concluded that registration of Centrotherm’s trademark may create confusion. The the contested trademark was cancelled accordingly.

 

Source: 

https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOkAssUpPtLmwgXonwL4rDx00SWt397

Taiwan Court Found Mass-Produced Work Not Eligible for Copyright Protection

On August 20, 2025, in a copyright infringement case involving reproduction of a decorative temple roof design, Taiwan’s Intellectual Property and Commercial Court (the “IPC Court”) dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the asserted work was mass-produced industrial product, which lacks the required originality.  

The Plaintiff alleged that he was the author of a relief sculpture (the “Work”, see below), a decorative design for the roof of temple or altar.  According to Plaintiff’s complaint, the Defendants infringed the Plaintiff’s copyright by, without prior permission, mass-producing the Work and selling the unauthorized replicas.

The Defendants argued that the Work represented a common decorative motif used in Taiwanese temples and altars, featuring a dancing carp among waves. These designs should be in the public domain and not eligible for copyright protection.

The IPC Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s infringement claim, holding that:

1.        To be eligible for copyright protection, the Work must possess minimum degree of originality. While the threshold is lower than that for patent novelty, the work must reflect a degree of human intellect and personal expression. If the work is merely an industrial product manufactured via mass production without meaningful human intellectual input, such work should not be eligible for copyright protection.

2.        According to the Plaintiff’s own testimony, he only created a two-dimensional sketch of the decorative temple roof design. It was another wood sculptor who created a wooden model based on that sketch. Subsequently, the Work was manufactured via mass production based on the wooden sculpture. 

3.        In view of the above, the Work, in the Court’s view, was only an industrial product lacking originality, because it did not reflect sufficient human intellectual creation. By contrast, the wooden sculpture created based on Plaintiff’s sketch should be the one that possessed minimum degree of originality that would be eligible for copyright protection.

4.        Given the absence of originality, the Court found the Work asserted by the Plaintiff not copyrightable, and dismissed Plaintiff’s claim accordingly.

Source:

113-Ming-Chu-Su-Zi No. 53 (IPC Court, August 20, 2025)

https://judgment.judicial.gov.tw/FILES/IPCV/113%2c%e6%b0%91%e8%91%97%e8%a8%b4%2c53%2c20250820%2c1.pdf

IPC Court Orders Destruction of Public Artwork for Copyright Infringement

On August 29, 2025, in a copyright dispute involving a public art tender for Kaohsiung Branch of Enforcement Agency of Ministry of Justice, the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court (“IPC Court”) found that the supplier’s artwork infringed the copyright of the Japanese artist Mr. Kino Satoshi. The Court ordered the destruction of the infringing artwork, and awarded the artist NT$ 2 million in damages.

The disputed artwork was commissioned as public art for the new building of Kaohsiung Branch of Enforcement Agency of Ministry of Justice (see below). The tender was awarded in 2017 to the Defendant, GeFeiYaChi Visual Image Design Ltd., and the disputed artwork was installed in 2018. 

(113-Ming-Chu-Su No. 92 (the IPC Court), see: https://reurl.cc/pYXzkl)

The Plaintiff, Mr. Kino Satoshi, is a renowned ceramic artist whose works have received international recognitions, including awards and exhibitions featured in prominent ceramics magazines. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s public artwork infringed his 2015 ceramic piece “颪(眼)” (hereafter “Plaintiff’s work”, See below). 

                    (113-Ming-Chu-Su No. 92 (the IPC Court), see: https://reurl.cc/pYXzkl)

Based on the records, Plaintiff’s work had previously won the Recommendation Prize at Taiwan’s Ceramics Biennale in 2016, and was exhibited at the Yingge Ceramics Museum of New Taipei City that same year. The Plaintiff discovered the Defendant’s public artwork in 2022, deemed it a illegal copy, and filed copyright infringement lawsuit afterwards.

 

The IPC Court found substantial similarity between the disputed artwork and Plaintiff’s work, e.g., the interconnected two semicircles at the center, the flipped ribbon-like extensions on both sides, and the overall unique asymmetrical style. These shared elements, the IPC Court concluded, created a similar “overall concept and feel”.

 

The Defendant argued that the disputed artwork was independently created and that it had no access to the Plaintiff’s work. The IPC Court found these arguments unpersuasive:

 

First, the Defendant failed to provide clear and credible documentation of the creative process.

 

Second, the evidence submitted by the Defendant related mainly to photography, which is unrelated to ceramic art, undermining the Defendant’s claim of independent authorship. 

 

Third, given the high degree of similarity between the disputed artwork and the Plaintiff’s work, and the fact that Plaintiff’s work was exhibited in Taiwan in 2016, there is reasonable likelihood that the Defendant had access to Plaintiff’s work before submitting its bid in 2017. 

 

In light of the substantial similarity, the reasonable likelihood of access, and the absence of proof of independent creation, the IPC Court held the Defendant unlawfully copied Plaintiff’s work. The IPC Court ordered the destruction of the infringing artwork and awarded damages accordingly.

 

Source: 113-Ming-Chu-Su No. 92 (the IPC Court)

https://judgment.judicial.gov.tw/FILES/IPCV/113%2c民著訴%2c92%2c20250829%2c1.pdf 

VOLVO Prevailed in Trademark Opposition Against “VOLOCO” Trademark

On July 24, 2025, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) ruled in the favor of auto giant Volvo, finding the contested trademark “VOLOCO” should be cancelled due to a likelihood of confusion with Volvo’s iconic brand “VOLVO” (Reg. No. 00111931, see below).

The contested trademark, “VOLOCO” (Reg. No. 02405141, see below), was filed on March 15, 2024, and granted on October 1, 2024, designated for use in goods in Class 12, including automobiles, components of automobiles, motorcycles, and components of motorcycles. Volvo filed opposition on December 30, 2024, citing violations of Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

TIPO sided with Volvo based on Article 30.1.10, reasoning that:

1.    On trademark similarity, the contested trademark “VOLOCO” and Volvo’s “VOLVO” both start with “VOL” and end with “O”, which makes the two trademarks visually and verbally similar to each other.

2.    On the designated products, TIPO noted that Volvo’s “VOLVO” also covered “automobiles, motorcycles, trucks, and the relevant components”, which resemble those designated by the contested trademark.

3.    Further, based on TIPO’s and Court’s prior decisions, and the evidence of continuous media coverage, including the webpages introducing Volvo’s vehicles throughout the period of 2010 and 2024, “VOLVO” as a trademark was highly distinctive and has established strong brand recognition in the auto industry. Therefore, consumers should be more familiar with “VOLVO”.

4.    In view of the above, given the similarity between the two trademarks, the overlap of product categories, and “VOLVO”’s high distinctiveness and strong brand recognition, TIPO concluded that the registration of “VOLOVO” would create confusion with “VOLVO” among the relevant consumers. Hence, registration of “VOLOCO” was cancelled accordingly.

 

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOnAs4XrPujCqRo2xVknAPqty39JR8F

Apple successfully cancelled “APP LEMAN” trademark in opposition proceeding

On July 31, 2025, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) cancelled the registered trademark “APP LEMAN”, finding such trademark to be confusingly similar to Apple Inc.’s iconic brand “APPLE” (Reg No. 01457997, 01591959, and 01438475, see below).

The contested trademark, “APP LEMAN” (Reg. No. 02348755, see below) was filed on May 25, 2023, and granted on January 1, 2024, covering services in Class 35, including advertising, online advertising, retail and wholesale of computer accessories, online auctions, consumer analysis for commercial and market purposes, retail and wholesale of computer hardware, retail and wholesale of computer software, etc. Apple Inc. filed opposition on March 28, 2024, citing violations of Articles 30.1.10 and 30.1.11 of Trademark Act.

TIPO sided with Apple Inc. on July 31, 2025, cancelling “APP LEMAN” based on Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act:

1.        Article 30.1.11 of Trademark Act provides that a mark shall not be registered if such a mark is “identical or similar to another’s well-known trademark, and hence there exists likelihood of confusion, or damage of distinctiveness or reputation of such well-known trademark.”

2.        Based on the evidence submitted by Apple Inc., including the worldwide trademark registrations of “APPLE”, prior court’s decisions, TIPO’s decisions, catalogues of products, annual reports, and the relevant media coverages such as Forbes, Interbrand, and Fortune, TIPO agreed that “APPLE” has become well-known among the relevant consumers when the contested trademark filed for registration in 2023.

3.        The registrant argued that the contested trademark was based on a combination of “APP”, an ordinary word, and “LEMAN” a word without ordinary meaning. However, TIPO noted that the evidence of trademark use indicated that the registrant actually presented the contested trademark as “APPLE MAN”, instead of “APP LEMAN”. Thus, TIPO held that ordinary consumers may easily perceive the contested trademark as a combination of “APPLE” and “MAN”, which is similar to Apple Inc.’s well-known trademark.

4.        Further, “Apple” as a trademark is highly distinctive, and has established strong recognition among the relevant consumers. Besides, TIPO noted that the services covered by the contested trademark, such as the online advertising, and retail and wholesale of computer hardwares and accessories, are relevant to the designated products of Apple Inc.’s above well-known trademark. Therefore, TIPO concluded that there is relatedness between the designated services of the contested trademark and the designated products of Apple Inc.’s trademark.

5.        In light of the above, considering the well-known status of “APPLE”, the similarity between the two trademarks, the strong brand recognition of “APPLE”, and the relatedness between the designated products and services, TIPO held that the registration of “APP LEMAN” may create confusion among the relevant consumers. As a result, “APP LEMAN” was cancelled accordingly.

Source: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOnBMscrfsUYODJJvM0wYQ295638WRL

Mühlbauer’s attempt to trademark “ICON” was denied over similarity with Dunhill’s “DUNHILL LONDON ICON”

On July 17, 2025, the Petitions and Appeals Committee of the Ministry of Economic Affairs (“Committee”) rejected an appeal by the German dental technology company Mühlbauer Tech. GMBH (“Mühlbauer”), finding that Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) was correct in ruling that Mühlbauer’s application for “ICON” was confusingly similar to Dunhill’s “DUNHILL LONDON ICON.” (Reg. No. 01743082, see below).

 Mühlbauer filed its trademark application for “ICON” on November 10,2022, intended for use in goods in Class 3, covering cosmetics, toothpaste, mouthwash, breath fresheners, tooth whiteners, tooth-cleaning washes, and other non-medical oral hygiene products (Application No. 111081184, see below). TIPO cited Article 30.1.10 of the Trademark Act, and found the application confusingly similar to “DUNHILL LONDON ICON” held by Dunhill, denying the application on March 5, 2025. Mühlbauer appealed. 

Before the Committee, Mühlbauer argued that TIPO erred in dissecting and focusing merely on the letters “ICON” in the two trademarks. Taken as a whole, Dunhill’s trademark contains other visual elements, making Mühlbauer’s application dissimilar and unlikely to cause confusion. Additionally, Mühlbauer’s application was intended for use in tooth-whitening and mouth- cleaning products, which should be different from Dunhill’s designated products such as fragrance.

 

The Committee upheld TIPO’s position based on the following reasons:

1.        On similarity, although Dunhill’s cited trademark contained extra elements like “dunhill” and “LONDON”, the Committee noted that the word “ICON” still occupied a considerable portion, and may attract the visual attention of ordinary consumers. Accordingly, the Committee found that “dunhill” and “ICON” both constitute the dominant portion of the cited trademark, and that TIPO was correct in finding similarity between Mühlbauer’s “ICON” and Dunhill’s “DUNHILL LONDON ICON”.

2.        On the designated products, the Committee agreed with TIPO that both Mühlbauer‘s “ICON” and Dunhill’s cited trademark were designated for use in goods that related to personal beauty, hygiene, and deodorants. Based on common trade practice, consumers may find these products to have overlapping or associated purposes.

3.        While Mühlbauer argued that its “ICON” mark has been used in the market for a long time and that consumers should be able to distinguish the two trademarks, the Committee disagreed. It found that based on the records submitted by Mühlbauer, the products were related to medical supplies for dental use, which differ from the products designated by Mühlbauer’s current application. Moreover, since there was no supporting evidence like sales report, market share, or advertising materials to prove the fame of Mühlbauer’s “ICON” mark in the cosmetics category, the Committee found Mühlbauer’s argument based on long-term coexistence unpersuasive. 

4.        In view of the similarity between the trademarks, the relatedness between the designated products, the distinctiveness of Dunhill’s cited trademark, and the lack of supporting evidence for trademark use, the Committee found no error in TIPO’s decision to reject Mühlbauer’s application for “ICON”. As a result, Mühlbauer’s appeal was denied.

 

Source:

TIPO’s decision:

https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOjAsoQovvLzov%2B9zM3DWCGHGNeTkS8

The Committee’s decision: 

https://pamsdmz.moea.gov.tw/pams-public/api/download/20250810_decisionDownload-A111403016_100910_158_ZtCP9Cu2Wl/

Prada Wins Trademark Appeal Over "MIU MIU" in Taiwan

On July 17, 2025, the Petitions and Appeals Committee of Taiwan’s Ministry of Economic Affairs (“Committee”) sided with fashion brand Prada, confirming that the contested trademark “NIUNIU衣櫥” would create confusion with the well-known “MIU MIU” trademark (No. 163308 and No. 836654, see below).

The contested trademark, “NIUNIU衣櫥“ (No. 02256499, see below), was filed by a Ms. Lin on March 7, 2022, and granted on October 16, 2022, designated for use in goods in Class 25, including underwear, lingerie, bras, etc. Prada filed an opposition on January 13, 2023, citing violations of Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11, and 30.1.12 of Trademark Act.

On February 26, 2025, Taiwan’s IP Office (“TIPO”) ruled in favor of Prada, finding similarity between the trademarks, and cancelling “NIUNIU衣櫥” based on Article 30.1.10 of the Trademark Act. Ms. Lin appealed.

Before the Committee, Ms. Lin argued that the font, style, and pronunciation of the contested trademark were different from those of Prada’s “MIU MIU”. Additionally, Ms. Lin’s products were mainly sold via online platforms, which she claimed did not overlap with Prada’s sales channels. Moreover, Ms. Lin argued that the contested trademark itself had also become famous after the successful sales of the underwear products. There should be no confusion between the contested trademark and Prada’s “MIU MIU”.

The Committee did not find Ms. Lin’s arguments persuasive:

1.        On similarity of the trademarks, the Committee found that “MIU MIU” and “NIUNIU” constitute the dominant portion of both trademarks, and the way the letter “N” is pronounced resembles that of the letter “M”. Thus, in its entirety, the Committee found “NIUNIU衣櫥” visually and verbally similar to “MIU MIU”.

2.        On similarity of the products, the Committee noted that the contested trademark was designated for use in various kinds of underwear and bras, and that Prada’s “MIU MIU” trademarks were designated for use in clothing and retail services of apparel. Hence, the designated products of the contested trademark shared similar functions and sales channels with those designated by Prada’s “MIU MIU” trademarks. 

3.        Although Ms. Lin argued that her products were sold via the internet, which should be distinguishable from Prada’s “MIU MIU”, the Committee elaborated that the similarity analysis of the product should be based on the registered trademark’s designated goods, not on how the products were actually sold. 

4.        As for the evidence of trademark use proposed by Ms. Lin, the Committee found that it was either not properly dated, or failed to show the contested trademark “NIUNIU衣櫥” clearly. Thus, it was groundless for Ms. Lin to claim that the contested trademark had become well-known among the relevant consumers. In the meantime, there were prior TIPO’s and Court’s decisions affirming the well-known status of Prada’s “MIU MIU” trademarks. Consumers should be more familiar with “MIU MIU” than “NIUNIU衣櫥”. 

5.  In view of the similarity between the trademarks, the overlap of the designated products, and the well-known status and strong brand recognition of “MIU MIU”, the Committee found that TIPO was correct in cancelling “NIUNIU衣櫥”. As such, Ms. Lin’s appeal was rejected accordingly.

 

Source:

1.        TIPO’s decision: https://cloud.tipo.gov.tw/S282/S282WV1/#/written-result-details/disposition?issueKey=doNRI%2BOjA8sXovu2Obze%2Fs2%2BIMVqqApPiNx%2B

2.    The Committee’s decision: https://pamsdmz.moea.gov.tw/pams-public/api/download/20250802_decisionDownload-A211403013_154509_557_MfVE5Y7m0z/