June 26, 2025  Copyright ©️ 2025 by goldkeen International Patent & Trademark Joint Office

 

sparked heated discussions due to its high similarity to the famous Korean brand “Chamisul.” A consumer who purchased the soju at Zhongshan Underground Mall initially believed it was Korea’s “Chamisul.” It wasn’t until they got home and noticed it lacked the usual alcoholic taste that they realized they had bought the wrong product. 

 

Riding on Another’s Trademark: A Case Study in Confusion from a One-Character Difference

▲ “Chinglu” vs. “Chamisul”:
• Both names have two characters and share the character “露” (lu).
• The bottle color and label design are extremely similar.
• They are sold through the same channels and serve the same purpose—as soju beverages.

▲ “Little Prince” vs. “Little Nobleman”:
• Both names have four characters and differ by only one.
• The packaging color and design are also highly similar.
• They are sold through the same channels and serve the same purpose—as noodle products.

 

The visual features of these two products make it easy for average consumers to be confused or misled without deliberate inspection. According to Article 30, Paragraph 1, Subparagraphs 10 and 11 of Taiwan’s Trademark Act, a trademark shall not be registered if it is identical or similar to a well-known trademark or mark, and is likely to cause confusion or misidentification among relevant consumers, or to dilute the distinctiveness or reputation of the well-known trademark or mark.

Both “Chamisul” and “Little Prince Noodles” are registered trademarks in Taiwan.
However, “Chinglu” and “Little Nobleman Noodles” bear significant resemblance in terms of name, packaging style, and overall market positioning, indicating a clear intent to ride on the reputation of the originals. This similarity has already caused confusion among the general public, and thus may raise concerns of trademark infringement, which is punishable by up to three years of imprisonment.

In addition to criminal liability, the brand owners may also file civil lawsuits seeking damages and an injunction to stop the infringing activities. For emerging brands, this could pose a serious legal risk and operational burden.

Three Key Principles and Criteria for Determining Trademark “Likelihood of Confusion

According to Taiwan’s Trademark Act and practical examination guidelines, the requirements for determining likelihood of confusion include:
(1) Similarity of the trademarks
(2) Similarity of the goods or services

I. Three Main Criteria for Determining Trademark Similarity:

1. Visual Similarity
   The consumer’s first impression of a trademark often comes from its visual appearance.
   If two marks are similar in font, color, layout, or graphics, they can easily mislead consumers.
   Example: “HERMÈS” vs. “BANANE”
2. Conceptual Similarity
   Even if the names differ, if the meanings or concepts behind them convey similar impressions to consumers, there is still a risk of confusion.
   Example: “熱到家” vs. “HOT 到家”
3. Phonetic Similarity
   Trademarks that look different in writing may still sound similar in pronunciation or spelling, which can cause confusion during verbal communication or advertising.
   Example: “舒利渼” vs. “舒麗美 SHEREAN” — these sound highly alike phonetically.

 

II. Criteria for Assessing Confusion Risk Between Goods and Services:

1. Similarity of Goods
   Even if product names differ, if the goods are similar in function, purpose, material, target consumers, or usage context, consumers may still be misled.
   Example: Ballpoint pens and fountain pens — both are used for writing.
2. Similarity of Services
   a. Services aim to meet specific consumer needs; the more similar the target consumer base, the higher the degree of similarity.
   b. If services are commonly offered by the same type of provider, they are more likely to be deemed similar.
3. Similarity Between Goods and Services
   If there is a strong association between certain goods and services, consumers may mistakenly believe they come from related sources.
   Example: Cosmetics and cosmetic retail services.

 

Intellectual Property Legal Advice: Key Considerations for Corporate Brand Design

1. Avoid Phonetically or Semantically Similar Names
   Even a one-character difference from an existing brand may pose infringement risks, especially for goods in the same category.
2. Emphasize Distinctiveness in Overall Design
   Bottle shape, labels, color schemes, and fonts should be uniquely crafted to prevent confusion or misidentification.
3. Conduct Trademark Search and Registration
   Before launching a new brand, consult a professional IP advisor to perform a comprehensive trademark search and file for registration.
4. Avoid “Free-Riding” on Well-Known Trademarks
   Even if names are not identical, excessive imitation of a famous brand’s style or slogans may constitute unfair competition.

 

 

Conclusion: Brand Naming Is Not Just Creative Work—It’s a Legal Project
The case of “Chinglu” and “Chamisul” reminds us that without thorough legal evaluation, brand naming and design can easily cross into intellectual property infringement.
At the early stage of brand development, businesses must carefully consider trademark regulations and consumer recognition to ensure sustainable growth and avoid legal disputes.

Goldkeen protects your intellectual assets!
We specialize in trademark risk assessment, trademark search and registration, and handling responses to office actions, oppositions, and cancellations.
Whether you’re a business owner of a large corporation, a startup founder, or a content creator, when it comes to trademarks—turn to the Trademark Experts.