WELL-KNOWN TRADEMARKS JURISDICTION REPORT: TAIWAN
Crystal Chen and Iris Lin Tsai Lee & Chen
Universal Cement Corporation (UCC), a publicly listed Taiwanese company, applied for the device trademark ‘UCC collection’, citing retail services for hardware and construction materials under class 35 of the classifications of goods and services. Te trademark was granted in January 2011. Japanese coffee company UCC Holdings owns a trademark for ‘UCC’,
covering coffee, beverages, coffee-related products and coffee shops, as well as a variety of goods. Te Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) has recognised the mark as well-known in relation to coffee since 1996.
“A STRONG INDICATION OF A SINGLE ORIGIN OF GOODS MAY GRADUALLY BE WEAKENED OR DETRACTED FROM DUE TO SIMILAR USE BY ANY THIRD PARTY ON ENTIRELY DIFFERENT GOODS OR SERVICES.”
Te Supreme Administrative Court had a different view from the IP Court’s and in June 2014 it revoked the original decision and ordered TIPO to cancel the ‘UCC collection’ registration. In addition to acknowledging the similarity of the two marks, the
UCC Holdings opposed the ‘UCC collection’ mark on the ground
that it is too similar to its ‘UCC’ mark and therefore likely to confuse the relevant public or dilute the distinctiveness or reputation of the well- known mark. Te opposition was rejected by TIPO because the level of fame ‘UCC’ had so far achieved did not reach a high enough level for the brand to be universally known by the general public. Tis meant the protection for the Japanese company’s ‘UCC’ mark
should not extend to excluding others from using a similar mark covering “retail services of hardware and construction materials”, services that are far different from coffee-related goods and services. UCC Holdings appealed. Te IP Court acknowledged the fame of the
‘UCC’ mark in relation to coffee goods and services, and had no doubt that the mark is widely known to domestic consumers. But the court was also persuaded that ‘UCC’ is an abbreviation of the company name Universal Cement Corporation. It added that the overall design of the disputed trademark is also
distinctive and impressive. Te court said that although the ‘UCC’ mark is registered for a variety of goods and services, all the submitted evidence of its use is directed towards coffee-related goods and services. It said that since there is no evidence proving that the company has multidimensional operations, the protection of the ‘UCC’ mark shall be limited. In addition, said the court, the hardware and construction materials
that the Taiwanese company’s trademark designates are not cheaper in value or of poor quality, so the use of that mark is not likely to lower the quality or reputation of the Japanese company’s ‘UCC’ mark.
www.worldipreview.com
Supreme Court said: • Te distinctiveness of a well-known trademark suggests that a well- known trademark being used on certain goods or services may initially enable people to associate the goods or services with a particular origin. Such a strong indication of a single origin of goods may gradually be weakened or detracted from due to similar use by any third party on entirely different goods or services.
• Consequently, the trademark that has a strong indication of a single origin will possibly become an indicator of two or more origins. Te trademark will then lose its unique impression or association with single origin in the minds of the general public. • Insofar as dilution is concerned,
allowing the registration of a
trademark at issue may damage the distinctiveness or reputation of the well-known trademark, even though the market segmentation is distinct between the designated goods or services of two trademarks, and the conflict of business interests is not so obvious that consumers may be confused in terms of their respective origins. It appears that the Supreme Court believes that the level of fame of the
Japanese company’s ‘UCC’ mark is high enough to exclude other similar marks from a different industry.
Crystal Chen is a partner at Tsai, Lee & Chen. She can be contacted at:
cjchen@tsailee.com.tw Iris Lin is chief of contentious trademark matters at Tsai, Lee & Chen. She can be contacted at:
trademark@tsailee.com.tw
87
Taiwan Intellectual Property Office and Amanda Chen
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100