Many articles discussing Taiwan's branding stories mention the well-known snack brand “乖乖” (“Kuai Kuai”), a Chinese phrase commonly used to coax a kid into behaving well and sometimes roughly conveying the sense of “darling” in English (hence, it was also a panda's name). Founded in 1974, this Taiwanese brand has won the hearts of generations of children with its puffed snacks, including the signature Taiwanese-spice flavor. In addition to the distinctive word mark “Kuai Kuai,” the playful character with a sombrero, as well as the “Kuai Kuai Song” printed on the back of its packaging, are all important elements of the brand's identity.
A cultural Icon
However, as Taiwan entered the 2000s, the snack market underwent considerable changes, and competition from foreign brands posed a serious challenge for local brands like Kuai Kuai. After a rough patch, Kuai Kuai successfully strengthened its brand power and identity through a strategy of customization and cross-industry collaboration. Interestingly enough, this strategy is closely linked to a cultural practice in Taiwan's ICT industry: it is common for engineers (including our own IT team) to place a bag of green-packaged Kuai Kuai on or beside important computer equipment as a good-luck charm, so as to “bless” the computers, or, quite literally, to coax them, much like children, to behave and stay out of trouble. In a sense, the kids who grew up eating Kuai Kuai have brought it with them into their fabs and labs as a comforting mascot, drawing reassurance from the playful yet reliable identity of a brand that has accompanied them since childhood.
As an extension of this practice, many companies, including TSMC, have been happy to accept Kuai Kuai's offer for customized mascot products, some of which have been used as gifts for foreign business partners in the chip world. Cross-industry merchandise, such as mouse pads, has also entered the market in recent years.
Challenge from Dilution and Passing-off and even Parody
As the brand power is getting deeply intertwined with public culture, a new challenge for its current management has occurred: how to harness and protect this energetic brand power while curbing passing-off and dilution. One of the management team's notable recent achievements came in June of this year, when it won a case before the IP & Commercial Court (IPC Court). Kuai Kuai Co., Ltd. v. Soldoutsoon Digital Marketing Co., Ltd. et al., 113 Min-Shang-Su 18, IPC Court (June 2026).
The defendant's trademark “喵乖乖” (“Miao Kuai Kuai,” roughly conveying the idea of “good kitty!”) was used on cat-grass products and was found by the court to infringe the “Kuai Kuai” trademark, which was also registered for pet food. In fact, the defendant's green packaging also bore a noticeably similar design, while the buck-toothed character had been replaced by an orange cat, likewise wearing a large navy-blue sombrero.
Beyond the parties' dispute over trademark similarity and likelihood of confusion, the defendant raised a parody defense, adding another layer of complexity to the case. The defendants argued that their intention was “solely to evoke childhood memories of the packaging of Kuai Kuai snacks and, through humor and creativity, to convey the childlike character of the products and a playful or humorous message.” As such, they argued, no consumer confusion would arise.
The underlying implication is noteworthy under trademark law: as Kuai Kuai has become part of the public's collective memory and has acquired widespread secondary uses - for example, the now-familiar practice of “petting” a computer - then why couldn't the defendant create yet another use, in this case literally to “pet” a pet, and use a mark to capture that playful association, while enjoying the parody/free expression exemption from trademark infringement?
Taiwan's Trademark Act does not expressly provide for a parody defense as an exemption from trademark rights. The issue has instead been addressed in court decisions, and successful parody defenses have been extremely rare, with this case being no exception. What makes the case noteworthy, therefore, is less the outcome than the court's approach and criteria for examining the parody defense.
IPC Court's Criteria
In this case, the IPC Court identified five requirements for a successful parody defense, including:
- The defendant's mark must have a humorous, satirical, or critical character and simultaneously convey two contrasting/contradictory messages;
- Seeing the defendant's mark, consumers should immediately associate it with the famous trademark;
- There must remain a sufficient degree of separation between the defendant's mark and the famous trademark such that consumers can readily distinguish the two, thereby eliminating any likelihood of confusion among relevant consumers;
- The defendant's mark must withstand strict scrutiny under the constitutional protection of freedom of expression, such that protecting the parody at the expense of the trademark right is necessary to serve the public interest in safeguarding free expression; and
- It must not take unfair advantage of the famous trademark, nor give rise to a likelihood of dilution of the famous trademark's distinctiveness or reputation.
Applying the above criteria, the IPC Court dismissed the defendants' parody defense. Its reasoning can be summarized as follows:
- The defendants' addition of “Miao” (meaning “meow”) merely reflects the nature of the goods as cat products, while “Kuai Kuai” retains the same meanings conveyed by the plaintiff's mark, such as obedient, cute, and well-behaved. The difference between the two marks thus corresponds primarily to the difference in product content.
- As such, consumers would perceive “Miao Kuai Kuai” as a cat-specific version of “Kuai Kuai,” rather than immediately recognizing the asserted humorous or parodic character. Accordingly, consumers may not clearly distinguish the two marks upon first encountering “Miao Kuai Kuai,” giving rise to a likelihood of confusion.
- Given the fame and commercial importance of the “Kuai Kuai” mark, the high similarity between the two marks could lead consumers to believe that the defendants' cat grass products originated from the plaintiff and thereby materially affect the plaintiff's interests. Under these circumstances, the court found insufficient grounds for giving the defendants' freedom of expression priority over the plaintiff's trademark rights.
Taken together, the five criteria given by the IPC Court and the manner in which they are applied suggest that the Court leaves very limited room for a parody defense. In particular, there appears to be a significant tension between Criteria 2 and 3. On the one hand, the parody mark must be sufficiently similar to the famous trademark for consumers to recognize at a glance its intention to imitate that mark. On the other hand, it cannot be too similar to the famous trademark, or it will immediately run into the problem of likelihood of confusion. This leaves the parody mark in a narrow space between imitation and confusion, making it all the more difficult for the mark to convey the “two contrasting/contradictory messages” as required under Criterion 1.
There is no record of an appeal in this case, which is certainly good news for Kuai Kuai and for other brands that have evolved into cultural icons. Nevertheless, given Taiwan's vibrant parody culture, disputes of this kind are unlikely to disappear anytime soon.