經通國際智慧產權事務所

A trademark is a means for consumers to distinguish goods from different sources. Therefore, when judging whether or not trademarks are confusingly similar, judgments should be made based not only on the awareness and the experience of the average consumer, but also on the nature of the merchandise. For example, consumers of specialized merchandise, medication, or merchandise with high unit price are mostly professionals; consequently, they are more capable of distinguishing goods from different sources than the consumers of daily necessities. Therefore, a different set of standard should be applied when judging trademarks that are related to the specialized and more expensive goods.

The designated items of the opposed trademark in this case are related to the equipments and apparatus for use in the medical field. The targeted consumers are mainly of the medical institutions. That is, consumers of the above-identified designated items are mostly the professionals in the medical filed. Consequently, they are more aware of the small differences between the two trademarks then the average consumer. Therefore, a higher standard should be applied when judging how similar one trademark is to the other.

Comparing to the opposing trademark, the opposed trademark “RadiForce” is composed of three syllables, while the opposing trademark, “RADIFOCUS”, is of four. In addition, the opposed trademark has two capital letters “R” and “F” only, while the opposing trademark is composed of all capital letters. Moreover, the connotation of the two trademarks is different. The prefix, RADI, is originated from the medical term, “radiology”. And since it has not a meaning when standing long, it therefore, has a weak distinctiveness. In other words, “Force” and “FOCUS” become the main part of the two marks that should be compared for similarity. Since “Force” and “FOCUS” differ in connotation, which is well observed by the general public, the two trademarks shall not confused the average consumer. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, since both trademarks designated products in the medical field, their targeted consumers, who are mainly of the medical institutions, are more aware of small differences between the two trademarks; therefore, they are more capable of distinguishing goods from different sources than the average consumers.

Opposed Trademark(Reg. NO.: 1053738)　　　Opposing Trademark(Reg. No. 401413)

（Taipei High Administrative Court; September 2, 2005）

Source: TIPO E-news Release

Organized and translated by Tony Chen

General Manager