China Trademark Office Published Typical Cases of China’s Trademark Objections in 2022

According to China Intellectual Property News, the Trademark Office of the State Intellectual Property Office selected 5 Typical Cases of Trademark Objections in 2022 on April 27th.

 

Case 01: Trademark Objection Case of “花满楼” ,Application Number. 43541282.

Applicant: Zheng Xiaolong

Respondent: Sichuan Pudu Chaye Ltd.

  Applicant’s argument: “花满楼” is the name of the character in the Legend of Lu Xiaofeng, the original martial arts novel written by Gu Long, applicant’s father. The registration of the challenged trademark violates the provisions of Article 32 of the Trademark Law that “the existing prior rights of others shall not be harmed.”

Respondent’s argument: “花满楼” is not the original creation of the applicant’s father, and the applicant has no right to obstruct the reasonable use of others. The evidence provided by the applicant is not sufficient to prove that the character name of the work claimed by him has a high popularity in the tea field. “花满楼” means the flowers are all over the building. As a trademark registration, it is used in tea and other commodities to convey the products characteristics.

After examination, the Trademark Office of the State Intellectual Property Office (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Office) believed that the term “花满楼” had appeared in the works of Tang and Song poets before Gu Long wrote the Legend of Lu Xiaofeng. Therefore, in the public perception, “花满楼” does not only refer to the character Hua Manlou in the Legend of Lu Xiaofeng. Moreover, the evidence provided by the respondent is not enough to prove that the use of the opposed trademark on tea and other commodities is likely to cause the relevant public to mistake the commodity with its logo and the role name of “花满楼”, thus crowding out the potential trading opportunities and commercial value of the applicant. Therefore, the opposition’s claim that the opposed trademark damages the prior rights and interests of the character names in his famous works is not supported, and the opposed trademark is approved for registration.

 

Case 02: Trademark Objection Case of 张子憨, Application Number 58141161.

Applicant: Guangzhoushi Tianhequ Tangxia Songben Sangsang Fushi Gongzuoshi

Respondent: Cao Xuehua  

Applicant’s argument: the application for registration of the  trademark infringes on the legitimate rights and interests of the objector’s “张子憨” TikTok account.

After examination, the Trademark Office believed that the evidence provided by the respondent, including screenshots of the number of followers of “张子憨” on TikTok account, screenshots of the praised TikTok video of “张子憨” on TikTok account, screenshots of the homepage page of “张子憨” on TikTok account, and screenshots of the page where the video was first released, could prove that “张子憨” is the name of the objectors’ TikTok platform account and is mainly responsible for the promotion and sales of clothing matching. Through the release of clothing wear video and other ways to have a certain visibility. The opposed trademark is the same as the name of the Applicant’s TikTok account, which is registered and used on goods such as “clothing”, infringes the prior rights and interests of the applicant based on the name of his “张子憨” TikTok account, violates the provisions of Article 32 of the Trademark Law, and the opposed trademark shall not be registered.

 

Case 03: Trademark Objection Case of  “华莱仕福”, Application Number 54491795.

Applicant: Shanghai Rongying Pingpai Guangli Ltd.

Respondent: Tangshan Miyuan Qiye Guangli Zixun Ltd.

Applicant’s argument: the trademarks of both parties constitute similar trademarks, the respondent has been cancelled, and the approval and registration of the objector trademark is not legitimate and reasonable.

After examination, the Trademark Office believed that the applicant’s trademark “华莱仕福” was designated to use in Class 35 advertising, Class 43 restaurants and other services, the applicant cited the previously registered trademark No. 23667026, No. 10912752 “华莱仕” and other trademarks, and approved the use of services for Class 35 hotel business management, Class 43 cafe, etc. The opposed trademark and the cited trademark constitute similar trademarks used in some similar services, and their co-use may lead to confusion and misidentification by consumers. The evidence provided by the opponent shows that the opponent, Tangshan Miyuan Qiye Guangli Zixun Ltd., has been cancelled on May 11, 2021, and its subject qualification has been lost. Besides, there is no evidence to show that the applicant has handled the alteration procedures of the opposed trademark applicant before the cancellation. The trademark objected shall not be registered if the respondent has been cancelled.

 

Case 04: Trademark Objection Case of “唐妞”, Applicant Number 54053085.

Applicant: Shanxi History Museum (Shanxisheng Wenwu Jiaoliu Zhongxin)

Respondent: Henan Guangbo Dianshitai 

Applicant’s argument: the trademarks of both parties constitute similar trademarks, and the conflict between the trademark and the legitimate prior rights and interests of the objector damages the legitimate interests of the applicant and violates the provisions of Article 32 of the Trademark Law.

After examination, the Trademark Office believed that the trademark “唐妞” was designated to be used in Class 11 light bulbs and other commodities, the applicant cited the registered trademark No. 17454729, No. 17455036, No. 17455700 “唐妞” and other trademarks, approved the use of goods and services for Class 29 meat, Class 30 tea, Class 43 restaurants, etc. The contested mark and the cited marks do not constitute similar marks used on the same or similar goods or services. The documented evidence can prove that “唐妞” is an IP image created by the applicant based on the translation of Tang culture and based on the prototype of “the terra-cotta women of Tang Dynasty”. Through newspaper reports, publication of books, establishment of cultural and creative industry stores and other ways of publicity and use, “唐妞” has become a well-known brand of cultural and creative industry in the country, and has established a close corresponding relationship with dissidents. As a television medium, the person opposed should know about it. Without the consent of the opposing party, the application for registration of the trademark infringes the prior rights and interests of the opposing party based on the IP image name of “唐妞”, which violates the provisions of Article 32 of the Trademark Law, and the opposed trademark shall not be registered.

 

Case 05: Trademark Objection Case of “惠民南粤家政”, Applicant Number 52917720.

Applicant: Guangdongsheng Renli Ziyuan He Shehui Baozhangting

Respondent: Huizhoushi Nanyue Jiazheng Fuwu Ltd.

Applicant argument: “南粤家政” is an important livelihood project initiated and continuously promoted by Guangdong Provincial Party Committee and government. The application for registration of the opposed trademark is obviously malicious, which damages the brand rights and interests of “南粤家政”, is not conducive to the implementation of the livelihood project of “南粤家政”, and is deceptive to the public and prone to adverse effects.

After examination, the Trademark Office believes that“南粤家政” engineering Department is an important livelihood project initiated by Guangdong Provincial Party Committee and Guangdong Provincial government and jointly implemented by several government departments, and has been widely reported by the media. In this case, the respondent did not submit evidence to prove that he was authorized by the government to engage in the construction of the above project or permit the use of the above project name. The objectionable trademark consists of “惠民” and “给人民好处”. “惠民” has the meaning of “给人民好处”. The objectionable trademark “惠民” is designated to be used in social escort (accompany), household service and other services, which is easy to cause the public to misidentify the source of the service, and may damage the public interests, resulting in adverse social influences. In violation of the provisions of Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item (7) and Item (8), the trademark Law, the opposed trademark shall not be registered.


Post time: May-29-2023