December 11, 2025 ©️ Copyright – Goldkeen International Property Office
The recent news regarding Mastercard's trademark infringement lawsuit against "Mastercard Payment Co., Ltd." (萬事達金流) has drawn significant public attention. Although the names differ by only a few characters, the case triggers complex legal disputes. From a trademark perspective, what risks and warnings are hidden behind this confrontation?
I. The Core Dispute: Does Similarity in Name Equal Infringement?
Whether the similarity between "Mastercard Payment" and "Mastercard" constitutes trademark infringement is the crux of this case. According to Article 68 of the Taiwan Trademark Act, a person shall be deemed to have infringed the right of a registered trademark if they, without the consent of the proprietor, use a trademark which is "identical or similar" to the registered trademark in relation to "identical or similar goods or services," and where such use is likely to cause "a likelihood of confusion" among relevant consumers.
Given that consumers generally associate "Mastercard" (萬事達) with the internationally renowned payment brand, another company using the same name while providing similar payment/financial services may lead to market confusion, thereby infringing upon trademark rights.
II. Enhanced Protection for Well-Known Trademarks
If "Mastercard" is recognized as a "well-known trademark" under Article 30, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 11 of the Trademark Act, it enjoys broader protection. Even if "Mastercard Payment" provides different categories of goods or services, infringement may still be established if there is a "likelihood of confusion" or a "likelihood of diluting the distinctiveness or reputation" of the well-known trademark.
For example, in the "Hsu Tai-Shan Hotpot" case, the court ruled that "Tai-Shan" (泰山) is a well-known trademark; even when used in catering services, it constituted dilution of distinctiveness and infringement. Therefore, if Mastercard can prove its brand possesses high fame and distinctiveness in Taiwan, it will likely receive enhanced legal protection.
III. Company (Trade) Name ≠ Acquisition of Trademark Rights
Many SMEs mistakenly believe that passing company registration grants them the legal right to use that name for all purposes. However, according to Article 36 of the Trademark Act, trademark rights carry exclusivity. Company or trade name registration does not equate to the acquisition of trademark use rights.
If "Mastercard Payment" has not obtained a trademark registration for "Mastercard" or if its usage violates the principle of "good faith," it may still be found liable for infringement despite being a registered business entity. This point was reiterated by the court in the "Ah-Sha Restaurant" (阿霞飯店) case: even if parties belong to the same family, they cannot use a name with trademark effect without authorization.
IV. How Can Enterprises Avoid Legal Red Lines?
-
Trademark Search is the First Step Before finalizing brand names and launching marketing campaigns, conduct a search to see if identical or similar trademarks have already been registered. Entrusting this to a professional trademark agency allows for a better assessment of "likelihood of similarity" and "approval probability" based on industry experience.
-
Avoid Piggybacking on Existing Brand Identity Avoid a "free-riding" mentality; otherwise, it may constitute unfair competition.
-
Utilize the "Disclaimer" Strategy If a brand name contains descriptive or generic terms, a "disclaimer" (statement of non-exclusivity) should be made during the application process to facilitate approval.
-
Seek Professional Trademark Consultants Trademark infringement risks involve multiple legal dimensions, including registration, usage, distinctiveness, and reputation. It is recommended that enterprises seek professional consultants to protect brand assets and reduce dispute risks. GOLDKEEN IP possesses extensive experience and specialized IP knowledge to provide comprehensive pre-application searches and evaluations.
V. Conclusion: A Trademark is More Than a Name—It is Market Trust
The "Mastercard vs. Mastercard Payment" incident demonstrates that the relationship between company names and trademark rights is not a simple "first-to-register-wins" scenario. It requires a comprehensive judgment of distinctiveness, likelihood of confusion, and the manner of trademark use.
A brand is an enterprise's most valuable asset; a single oversight can lead to legal disputes or damage to business reputation. As a professional trademark consulting team in Taiwan, GOLDKEEN continues to provide rigorous IP protection strategies to safeguard the value and trust behind every brand.
If you would like to know whether your brand might be involved in trademark disputes, please contact the GOLDKEEN Trademark Consultant Team. Let us build the strongest brand firewall for your business.
