Taiwan: Taking on Puma

We like to report on trade mark cases of interest around the world. This article discusses a recent trade mark opposition in Taiwan, PUMA SA v Wei Shen Shoes Co. Ltd.

Wei Shen files a trade mark application

On 4 June 2024, the Taiwanese company Wei Shen Shoes Co. Ltd filed a trade mark application in Taiwan to register the below device – the trade mark was registered on 16 December 2024. The registration covered goods in class 25, including shoes, cloth shoes, sandals, slippers, rain boots, leather shoes, sneakers, and children’s shoes.

*Image credit

Puma files an opposition

The global footwear company, Puma SA (“Puma”), filed an opposition, claiming that the registration of the contested trade mark violated numerous articles of the Taiwanese Trademark Act, namely Articles 30.1.10, 30.1.11 and 30.1.12. Here is some detail on trade mark oppositions in Taiwan:

Article 29 covers trade marks that lack distinctiveness or are descriptive and/or generic; and
Article 30 covers trade marks that are contrary to public policy or morality, misleading or similar to earlier trade marks.

Decision by Taiwan’s IP Office - Puma has strong brand recognition

In the opposition, Taiwan’s IP Office (TIPO) ruled that Wei Shen’s contested trade mark could well cause consumer confusion with Puma’s stripe devices (particularly the trade marks the subject of registration numbers 01781822 and 00087487, as depicted below).

*Image credit

On 25 February 2026, TIPO ruled in the favour of Puma, finding that the contested trade mark should be cancelled on the basis of Article 30.1.10. TIPO discussed the following aspects of the case:

A likelihood of confusion: Article 30.1.10 of Taiwan’s Trademark Act deals with the fact that a trade mark cannot be registered if:

it is identical or similar to the registered trade mark of any other company; and
that registration covers goods or services that are identical or similar to those of the registered trade mark of any other company; and
the result is that there is a likelihood of confusion among the relevant consumers.

Similarity of trade marks: On this issue, TIPO found that the parties’ devices both form the impression of a curved line that becomes thicker.

Minor differences: TIPO observed that, although there are differences as regards the style of the dotted lines, the angle of the curve, and the colours presented, the differences would, in all likelihood, be minor.

Visually similar: TIPO found that the devices are usually placed on the side of the shoes, something that is not always easy for consumers to notice and distinguish. TIPO concluded that the contested trade mark is visually similar to Puma’s devices.

Similarity of products: TIPO found that the parties’ trade marks are used in relation to similar shoe products and, therefore, that the parties’ targeted customers and sales channels overlap.

Distinctiveness and brand recognition: Based on the evidence of trade mark use submitted by Puma, including:

records of worldwide trade mark registrations;
product sales;
celebrity endorsements;
marketing materials;
expansion of local stores; and
sponsorship of sports events,

TIPO agreed that Puma’s devices are distinctive and have established strong brand recognition. Consumers will be familiar with Puma’s devices, which should warrant a broader monopoly.

The big picture

In view of the:

similarity between the parties’ trade marks;
overlapping product category;
fact that Puma’s devices are distinctive and have established strong brand recognition,

TIPO concluded that the contested trade mark may well cause consumer confusion and Wei Shen’s contested trade mark was accordingly cancelled.

*Reviewed by Gaelyn Scott, Head of ENS’ IP & Innovation practice

Tevin Jones

Senior Associate | IP & Innovation

tjones@ENSafrica.com