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

都是辣椒惹的禍？

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

◎系爭商標

註冊號： 1825209

申請日期：2016/06/29

商品或服務名稱：餐廳；小吃攤

◎據爭商標

註冊號： 00047012

申請日期：1990/02/03

商品或服務名稱：餐飲服務

            

    註冊號： 00193699

    申請日期：2003/04/02

                 商品或服務名稱：餐廳，飲食店，酒吧服務。

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

一、據爭商標非直接說明餐飲服務內容，字體又經過設計，具識別性：

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

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

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

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

三、而商標皆指定使用於餐飲相關服務：

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

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

四、系爭商標未能提出使用資料證實在註冊時已為消費者所熟悉：

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

結論：

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

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