2011 Xing Shang Su Zi No. 117
|Decision No.||2011 Xing Shang Su Zi No. 117|
|Date||December 15, 2011|
No matter whether a well-known trademark is inherently distinctive or acquires after-use distinctiveness, it can be an object protected by the trademark dilution. Regarding the opposing trademark having a figure of “flying horse,” it is has been widely used by the predecessor of the joinder so as to be known to relevant customers in this country. It provides a mark indicating the source of the joinder’s products and acquires stronger distinctiveness. The opposing trademark is a well-known trademark. Because the similarity between the disputed trademark and opposing trademark reaches a high degree, even though the disputed trademark is designated to products or services, such as business information provider, mailing purchase, and electronic purchase service, not similar to what the opposing trademark is designated to, it will indeed gradually weaken or diverge the feature of the opposing trademark which indicates a single source of lubricate oil products. Therefore, the opposing trademark will become a trademark which indicates two or more sources. Or, that will cause the general public in the society not to be able to get a single association with, or have a unique impression of, the opposing trademark in their minds. As a result, there is likelihood of reductive harm on the opposing trademark.
Trademark opposition, well-known trademark, distinctiveness, trademark dilution, reductive harm
|Relevant statutes||Article 23, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 12, and Article 40 of the Trademark Act as amended and issued on May 28, 2003.|
- Release Date:2020-11-16