Bridgestone Licensing Services, Inc. (“Bridgestone”) filed an opposition with TIPO against Jeng Hua Enterprises Co., Ltd.’s “火鷹Fire Hawk” mark, registered on “bicycles and components, electric bicycles and components, electric vehicles and components, electric scooters and components, etc.” in Class 12, based on its prior registered “FIREHAWK” mark for use on “tires and tubes for vehicles” in Class 12.  TIPO rendered a decision on March 20, 2015, finding that the marks in dispute are highly similar in appearance, concept and pronunciation, and the goods designated thereby all belong to the same category of goods for vehicles and components and hence shall be deemed as similar goods.  TIPO found further that while Bridgestone’s cited “FIREHAWK” mark has been well-known to the related consumers in Taiwan prior to the registration date of “火鷹Fire Hawk” mark, the use status of “火鷹Fire Hawk” mark cannot be confirmed due to lack of use evidence.  TIPO concluded that it is obvious that the consumers are much more familiar with Bridgestone’s cited “FIREHAWK” mark, which bears stronger distinctiveness.  Based upon the above finding, TIPO concluded that the registration of “火鷹Fire Hawk” mark is likely to cause confusion to the related consumers and hence the registration should be revoked on basis of Article 30-I-(10) of Trademark Act.