5 May, 2018
The Petitions and Appeals Committee of the Ministry of Economic Affairs (“PAC”) held that the opposed mark “ 
”” is similar to the cited mark “
” ”, and the registration of the opposed mark designated on the same or similar goods and services should be revoked.
The PAC ruled on December 27, 2017 that the cited mark has distinctiveness, and the mere difference between the opposed mark “ ” and the cited mark “” ” were capital letters or small letters as well as the suffix “DS”, and the device of the opposed mark is similar to the number “7” contained in the cited mark, the degree of similarity between both marks is high.
In addition, part of goods and services in Classes 18 and 35 covered by the opposed mark are the same or similar to the designated goods “leather; purse”, etc. in Class 18 covered by the cited mark, both marks were designated to the same or similar goods/services.
The PAC therefore reversed the TIPO’s denial of the opposition to registration of the opposed mark, and ruled that the registration of the opposed mark to the extent that the mark was designated to part of goods and services in Classes 18 and 35 shall be revoked.
For further information, please contact:
Alina Chai, Tsar & Tsai Law Firm
law@TsarTsai.com.tw
