In an opposition decision rendered on March 30, 2016, the TIPO concluded that the opposed mark “億事通輪胎(簡體字) BRISKSTONE” owned by Guoben Tires Co., Ltd. is highly similar to the “BRIDGESTONE” mark registered by Bridgestone Corporation, and that the goods designated for both marks in Class 12, “wheels, inner tubes, tires, etc.”, are identical or highly similar.  Since Bridgestone’s “BRIDGESTONE” mark is highly distinctive and more well-known to local consumers than the opposed mark, the “BRIDGESTONE” mark deserves higher protection.  Based on the above findings, the TIPO concluded that the relevant consumers are likely to be confused as to the source of the goods offered under the two marks, or to be confused as to the relationship between the owners of the two marks as being affiliated entities, a licensor-licensee relationship, a franchisor-franchisee relationship, or other similar relationships.  Pursuant to Article 30-I-(10) of Trademark Act, the registration of the opposed mark “億事通輪胎(簡體字) BRISKSTONE” should be revoked.  Tsar & Tsai represented Bridgestone Corporation in this opposition case.