Success case

Litigation caseLocation:Home - Success case - Litigation case

Fineland IP Firm agent "SaiFu"trademark refusal to review the administrative dispute case

Appellant (original plaintiff) Yuyao Dilyli Chemical Technology Co., Ltd. (referred to as Yuyao Company) and the appellee (the original defendant), the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (referred to as the “Common Appraisal Committee”) on the “Saifu” trademark No. 18353893 ( Referred to as the application for trademarks, the case concerning the administrative disputes against the review and appeal was rejected by the Beijing Higher People's Court on May 16, 2018, and the collegial panel was formed to hear the case. The final judgment abolished the Beijing Intellectual Property Court (2017) Beijing 73rd Line No. 4770 Administrative Judgment; canceled the [2017] No. 41743 of the Commercial Appraisal Committee on the "No. 18353893 "Saifu" trademark refusal reply review decision" and ordered the TRAB to Yuyao Company made a new decision on the application for review of the “Saifu” trademark of No. 18353893.

[Trademark Information]

Application for trademark:

Approved use of commodities: nutritional supplements, medical supplements, dietary supplements for animals, veterinary medication

Citation mark:

Approved products: coffee, cocoa, sugar, tapioca, artificial coffee, candy, edible ice, sugar paddle, yeast, baking powder

[Introduction to the case]

The application for trademark was filed by Yuyao Dily Chemical Technology Co., Ltd. on November 17, 2015, and was later rejected by the Trademark Office. The plaintiff filed a review application with the Trademark Review and Appraisal Committee within the statutory time limit. The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board was on April 21, 2017. Make a business evaluation [2017] No. 41743 "About the 18353893 "Saifu" trademark refusal review decision" (referred to as "the responded decision"). The TRAB believes that the application for a trademark and a reference mark constitute an approximate mark on the same or similar goods. Yuyao Company refused to accept this decision and filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the application for trademarks and citation marks constituted similar trademarks on the same or similar goods. The appellant refused to accept the appeal within the specified time limit, and the court found that the administrative judgment of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court (2017) Beijing 73, No. 4770 was cancelled; the judgment of revoking the responded decision and re-making the decision was made. Our company's attorney client (appellant) won the second trial of the case.

【Court decision】

Article 30 of the Trademark Law stipulates that: Where a trademark applied for registration is the same or similar to a trademark already registered or pre-certified by another person on the same commodity or similar commodity, the Trademark Office rejects the application and does not make an announcement.

Article 28 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Reviewing Several Issues Concerning Administrative Cases Concerning the Authorization of Trademark Authorizations stipulates: "In the process of the people's court hearing the administrative case of trademark authorization and confirmation, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board rejects and rejects the application for trademarks. If the cause of registration or invalidation ceases to exist, the people's court may revoke the relevant ruling of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board based on the new facts and order it to make a new ruling based on the changed facts."

During the second trial of this case, Yuyao Company submitted the notice of trademark revocation as evidence, and proved that the cited trademark has been revoked on the approved “honey” commodity, and the word “Tianjin” was issued on June 20, 2018. Published on the 1604 issue of the trademark notice. In view of the judgment of the first instance and the decision of the respondent, the “Honey” products designated by the applicant for the trademarks and the “Honey” products approved by the cited trademarks constitute similar products. In the prior rights barrier, after the cited trademark has been revoked on the “honey” commodity, the cited trademark will no longer constitute an obstacle to the application for registration of the trademark application. The trade review committee shall make a new decision based on the changes in the facts that have occurred. The final judgment abolished the administrative judgment made by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court (2017) Beijing 73, No. 4770; canceled the responded decision and re-decided.