IP Court, in its judgment dated October 8, 2015, found that the trademark “SUPERFLY” is similar to the prior-registered trademark “SUPERDRY” in Class 25 in the name of DKH Retail Limited and is not registrable on the designated goods of “clothing, shoes, boots, hats, etc.” in Class 25 based upon Article 30-I-(10) of Trademark Act. Based on the above finding, the court revoked TIPO’s decision that the trademarks at issue are not similar to each other. The IP Court indicated that both parties’ trademarks contained the same prefix “SUPER” and ended with the same letter “Y” and were closely similar to each other in appearance and pronunciation. The court found further that, by adopting the same prefix “SUPER”, the two trademarks were similar in concept as well. The court indicated that English was not a common language in Taiwan and not all of the relevant consumers were able to comprehend the different meanings between the two words, and concluded that the degree of similarity between the two trademarks was very high.
- Checklist Checklist: Initial response to a report of suspicious activity (USA)
- How-to guide How-to guide: Understanding the competition law prohibitions in Article 101 and 102 TFEU (EU) Recently updated
- How-to guide How-to guide: Understanding antitrust and unfair trade practices law and your organization’s compliance obligations (USA)