Man Truck & Bus AG ("MTBA") successfully revoked Beiqi Foton Motor Co., Ltd.'s ("Beiqi") trademark registration of "AUMAN" for use on the goods "automobiles, trucks, etc." by citing MTBA's well-known "MAN" mark in the fields of "trucks, buses".  Beiqi appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court ("SAC").  The SAC affirmed the IP Court's judgement and held that the lower court had properly decided the matter after considering the following relevant factors:

  1. The trucks and buses bearing the cited mark had been widely marketed in Taiwan and various countries around the world for a long period of time.  When the opposed mark was applied for registration in February 2011, the cited mark had already been well-known.
  2. The degree of similarity between both parties' trademarks was very high.
  3. The term "MAN" to form the cited mark did not directly convey any information relevant to the goods on which it had been used and hence, bore a high degree of distinctiveness.
  4. The goods respectively designated under both parties' trademarks were closely related and highly similar to each other. 
  5. The vehicles bearing the cited mark had entered the Taiwan market since 1987.  The materials presented by Beiqi were insufficient to support that the opposed mark had been marketed locally and had been commonly known to the relevant consumers.  As such, the cited mark, which the relevant consumers were more familiar with, should deserve greater protection. 
  6. Beiqi was aware of the existence of the cited mark before filing its application for registration of the opposed mark.   The naming of the opposed mark was inspired by the cited mark and employed the concepts of "high-end and mid-level heavy truck originating from Europe" and "the brand of 'MAN' which had been renowned in Europe".  Obviously, Beiqi's adoption of the opposed mark was out of an intention to confuse the consumers or to associate the trademarks at issue and thus was not in good faith.