Date: 13 February 2026

【Volume 166】

In an era of intense brand competition, many businesses attempt to modernize their identity by adopting simple, memorable "common foreign words". However, a recent landmark ruling by the Taiwan Intellectual Property and Commercial Court (2026 Shing Shang Su Zhi Administrative Judgment No. 25) serves as a critical wake-up call for brand managers. The dispute, involving the marks “Hello Hello” and “HELLO,” illustrates the invisible "red line" of likelihood of confusion that courts draw when minimalist brand designs clash with commonly used terms. This judgment highlights the delicate balance between the fair use of generic language and the rigorous protection of trademark distinctiveness.

Case Fact

In 2021, the plaintiff, Mr. Tsai, extracted the word element of his registered trademark featuring a cat holding a paper that says “Hello Hello” (Registration No. 00906951, hereinafter “Cat-patterned Trademark”), and reapplied for a word mark “Hello Hello” (hereinafter, the “Contested Trademark”), designating it for use on goods such as cleaning preparations.

Source: Taiwan Intellectual Property Office Trademark Search System

Subsequently, Colgate-Palmolive Company (hereinafter, “Colgate-Palmolive”) asserted that the Contested Trademark was similar to the “HELLO” series of trademarks—specifically, trademark registration nos. 02113526 and 02113527 (collectively hereinafter, the “Cited Trademarks”)—owned by its predecessor, Hello Products LLC (hereinafter, “Hello Products”). Accordingly, Colgate-Palmolive filed an opposition against the Contested Trademark with the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO), with Hello Products participating in the opposition proceedings simultaneously. Upon examination, the TIPO determined that the Contested Trademark was likely to cause confusion with the Cited Trademarks and hence revoked its registration. Disagreeing with the decision, the plaintiff brought the case to administrative litigation, which was ultimately dismissed by the court.

Source: Taiwan Intellectual Property Office Trademark Search System

IP Court’s Opinion: Criteria of Likelihood of Confusion

The court emphasized the following key factors in its judgment:

1. High Similarity between the Trademarks

Both the Contested Trademark and the Cited Trademarks consist of the same English word “Hello.” Although there are differences in color, capitalization, and repetition of the word, they remain highly similar in overall appearance, concept and pronunciation. Consumers are therefore likely to misidentify the trademarks as coming from related sources. As such, the degree of similarity between the trademarks is not low.

2. High Similarity between the Designated Goods

The designated goods of the Contested Trademark and the Cited Trademarks, namely, “detergent” and “soap,” both fall within the category of cleaning preparations. In addition, “ethereal oils” and “lip balm” are related in terms of their raw materials. Accordingly, the designated goods of the Contested Trademark and the Cited Trademarks share close affinities in function, purpose, manufacturing, and marketing channels, and are thus considered highly similar.

3. Possessing a Normal Degree of Inherent Distinctiveness

Regarding the Cited Trademarks, the denotation of the word “hello” bears no direct connection with the designated goods such as soap. In this case, consumers are able to identify the word marks as indicators of source. Therefore, the trademarks possess a normal degree of inherent distinctiveness.

4. Insufficient Evidence of Actual Use

As for the Contested Trademark, the catalogues and inspection reports submitted as evidence by the plaintiff failed to demonstrate actual interaction between consumers and the trademark. Moreover, the plaintiff’s sales records did not specify details of the designated goods. As a result, the evidence was insufficient to prove that the Contested Trademark had acquired distinctiveness.

5. Primacy of Objective Visual Impression

The assessment of similarity between trademarks should be based primarily on the objective visual impression. The plaintiff’s claim of having acted in subjective good faith by following the earlier trademark (i.e., Cat-patterned Trademark) was merely one factor for consideration and should not serve as the sole or decisive criterion.