Prada has come up short in its bid to block the registration of “JIU JIU” as a trademark for use in connection with a wide array of Class 3 personal care products in Taiwan. In a ruling in March, Taiwan’s Intellectual Property Office rejected Prada’s opposition, finding that the “JIU JIU” mark – registered by Taiwanese company Dijia Co., Ltd. – is not confusingly similar to Prada Group’s MIU MIU trademark and thus, can be registered for cosmetics products, including perfume, shower gel, facial cleanser, etc.
The Background in Brief: In December 2023, Luxembourg Merchant Pride Co., Ltd., acting on behalf of Prada Group (“Prada”), lodged an opposition to the “JIU JIU” trademark, asserting that it is deceptively similar in both appearance and pronunciation to its own MIU MIU trademark, which is also registered in Taiwan. Given its longstanding use of the MIU MIU brand name on luxury fashion and accessories and its global reach via boutiques worldwide, Prada argued that the similarity of the MIU MIU and JIU JIU marks, combined with their use on closely related goods, was likely to cause consumer confusion and misidentification.
“JIU JIU” would be mistaken as part of the MIU MIU brand’s “series of trademarks” or at least perceived as associated with MIU MIU because the marks share a rhyming, repetitive structure and are used on similar cosmetic products, per Prada.
Dijia Co. countered, arguing that the marks are easily distinguishable, both visually and phonetically, as “JIU JIU” and “MIU MIU” differ in spelling, pronunciation (/dʒju/ vs. /mju/), and overall consumer impression. Beyond that, it argued that its JIU JIU mark is distinct and unlikely to be confused with MIU MIU in the cosmetics market.
No Likelihood of Confusion
In its decision on March 31, the Taiwan IP Office set the stage by establishing the Taiwanese Trademark Act prohibits registration of marks that are likely to cause confusion with earlier marks for similar goods. While the goods at issue – cosmetics, soaps, essential oils, and other Class 3 products – were found to be similar in function and market positioning, the IP Office held that the marks themselves are “low in similarity.” Despite sharing a two-syllable repetition ending in “-IU,” it held that the first syllables – “JIU” and “MIU” – are phonetically distinct and visually dissimilar. The Office concluded that consumers with ordinary care and experience would not be misled into assuming an association between the two.
As for consumer familiarity with the respective marks, the Office found that neither party had presented sufficient evidence to show that “JIU JIU” or “MIU MIU” was widely recognized in Taiwan for Class 3 goods. Prada’s supporting materials focused primarily on fashion goods, such as shoes and bags, and while Prada demonstrated MIU MIU’s prominence in luxury apparel, the IP Office found that it fell short of establishing market awareness of the brand in the beauty and personal care space.
Dijia, for its part, submitted business data and advertising examples involving “JIU JIU”-branded face masks and fragrance products, but much of the evidence lacked clear dates or product labeling. Even still, since the legal burden was on Prada to prove likelihood of confusion, the IP Office determined that the case did not meet the threshold for refusal.
> TLDR: Taiwan’s IP Office denied Prada’s opposition to the “JIU JIU” mark, concluding that while the goods at issue are similar, the marks are not, and thus, there is no likelihood of confusion.
THE BIGGER PICTURE: The IP Office’s decision reflects a growing demand among international trademark authorities for concrete, market-specific evidence when global brands assert trademark claims. The outcome is “a reminder that trademark fame is often market and category-specific when assessing likelihood of confusion,” according to Saint-Island International Patent & Law Office attorney Steven (Chia-Cheng) Liao. So, for large fashion groups like Prada, this means that success in trademark disputes increasingly hinges on localized market data – not just global prestige.
This decision is also noteworthy because it comes at a time when MIU MIU is experiencing a major commercial upswing. Prada Group reported that retail sales at MIU MIU jumped 60 percent during the first three months of 2025, signaling surging consumer demand. The brand also claimed the number two spot on Lyst’s “Hottest Brands” index for Q1 2025, trailing only LOEWE. Despite this sharp rise in popularity, the ruling demonstrates that fame in the fashion sector – even in the midst of a breakout period – does not guarantee trademark protection in unrelated product categories or jurisdictions.
As beauty and personal care become strategic expansion categories for fashion brands, more cross-category clashes over brand identity and consumer perception are likely to come into fruition.
Share
