Strategic Proof of Trademark Use in Taiwan: How the CROWN Ruling Impacts the Global Hospitality and Entertainment Industry
Date: 8 May 2026
【Volume 170】
Many international hospitality operators serve Taiwanese consumers through third-party platforms despite having no physical presence in Taiwan. In the CROWN case (Intellectual Property and Commercial Court, 2023 XingShangSuZi No. 14), the Court overturned the original cancellation decision made by TIPO. In this judgment, the Court provided a detailed analysis of how trademark use can be recognized as valid proof of use when third parties are involved in the transaction process, and clarified which materials may or may not be accepted as evidence under such circumstances. This ruling serves as a highly valuable reference for trademark positioning within the international tourism and entertainment industries.
Case Facts
In April 2020, a Taiwanese natural person, Mr. Guan-Hsiung Wang (hereinafter, “the opponent,” or “Wang”), filed a request with the TIPO to cancelled the registered trademark “CROWN” (hereinafter, “the contested trademark”) owned by the Australian hotel operator, CROWN MELBOURNE LIMITED (hereinafter, “the owner of the contested trademark”), on the grounds of non-use for a continuous period of three years. Following examination, the TIPO rendered a decision in July 2022 approving the cancellation. The owner of the contested trademark subsequently filed an administrative appeal with the Petitions and Appeals Committee under the Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA), which held that the grounds for cancellation were not established and rescinded the TIPO’s decision. Dissatisfied with the appeal result, Wang brought an administrative lawsuit before the IPCC. In March 2024, the court rendered its first-instance judgment, upholding the Petitions and Appeals Committee of MOEA’s decision.
|
Contested Trademark |
|
|
Application Number |
086048933 |
|
Registration Number |
00104570 |
|
Trademark Owner |
CROWN MELBOURNE LIMITED |
|
Terms of Trademark Registration |
November 1, 1998 - October 31, 2028 |
|
Description of Services |
Class 42 Hotel (旅館); hotel (酒店); restaurants; coffee shop；hot and cold beverage store; brasserie; bar services |
The TIPO’s Opinion — Cancellation Approved
1. Travel reports does not constitute proof of use:
Media or consumer reports that merely introduce Australian travel itineraries or hotel features, without being aimed at marketing to the Taiwanese consumers, are difficult to be recognized as facts of trademark use within Taiwan.
2. Reviews on third-party booking platforms are insufficient as valid supporting proof of trademark use:
Even if Taiwanese users have posted reviews on platforms such as TripAdvisor or Agoda, such reviews cannot clearly prove that pertinent transactions or marketing activities actually took place within Taiwan, and thus are difficult to serve as valid supporting proof of trademark use.
3. The cooperation agreement between the contested trademark owner and the travel agency is unrelated to the use of the contested trademark:
The owner of the contested trademark submitted contractual documents with travel agencies as supporting evidence; however, most of the counterparties were Australian businesses, which could not prove that Taiwanese businesses were authorized to use the contested trademark. Even if contracts were signed with Taiwanese travel agencies, they could only prove that such agencies had booked rooms with the owner of the contested trademark, and could not establish whether the services were offered with Taiwanese consumers as the target.
Opinion of the Petitions and Appeals Review Committee, MOEA and the IPCC — Cancellation Not Established
1. Proof of cooperation with travel agencies may be recognized as trademark use:
According to Taiwan’s judicial practices, the use for preserving the right only requires the trademark owner’s consent, regardless of whether the trademark license has been registered with the TIPO. Therefore, after the owner of the contested trademark further provided information showing that the Australian travel agency was a corporate affiliate of the Taiwanese travel agency, it could be determined that the Taiwanese and Australian travel agencies within the same corporate group indeed had a cooperative and licensing relationship.
2. There is still room to recognize third-party booking websites “Tripadvisor” and “ezTravel” as proof of use:
• The domains of both the “Tripadvisor” and “ezTravel” are “.tw” as Taiwanese websites.
• The proof submitted by the owner of the contested trademark shows that Taiwanese consumers have booked the accommodation services offered by the said owner on the aforementioned booking websites, and have went abroad to use its hotel and lodging services. This is sufficient to establish that part of the transaction process for the contested trademark’s hotel and lodging services took place within Taiwan.
In summary, although the owner of the contested trademark has not established a service location in Taiwan, Taiwanese consumers have booked its services either through its Taiwanese travel agency partners or via Taiwanese booking websites. Namely, part of the transaction process have taken place within Taiwan, constituting valid use for preserving the right. Therefore, the cancellation decision rendered by the TIPO should be overturned.
Wisdom Analysis and Suggested Strategies
In light of the above, when collecting proof of trademark use, international hospitality and entertainment businesses should focus on concrete facts demonstrating actual use by Taiwanese consumers or in transactions conducted in Taiwan. Mere records of cooperation with third parties, such as booking platforms or travel agencies, have limited persuasiveness if they cannot demonstrate that the services were directly targeted at the Taiwanese market or that part of the transactions takes place in Taiwan.
In particular, for situations involving “booking in Taiwan and consumption abroad,” supplementary proof should be provided — for example, the proof that payment processing, customer service, or after-sales support are provided by Taiwanese businesses — to strengthen the connection of trademark use with the Taiwanese market. In the hospitality industry, for instance, records of cooperation with Taiwanese travel agencies still have relatively high substantive evidentiary value as proof of use.
▲ The booking pages resulting from the cooperation between the owner of the contested trademark and Taiwanese travel agencies clearly show specific room types, accommodation fees priced in New Taiwan Dollars, booking buttons, and other transaction-related information. They are viewed as proof of use for preserving the right with a higher likelihood of being admitted.1
