We, Beijing Fineland IP Firm, entrusted by AnitaKaushal, filed an invalidation action against the trademark “MAULI RITUALS” (No. 25759220 in Class 3) which was applied by Yixian Gemini Daily Necessities E-commerce Sales Department. The National Intellectual Property Administration, PRC (“CNIPA”) examined the case, and finally we succeeded in protecting our rights.

 Simple Description of the Case:

 1. As the main brand of the applicant, “MAULI” is registered internationally based on the mark registered in the United Kingdom and designated to be protected in Australia, China, India, Russia, the United States and some other countries. It can be seen that the applicant enjoys indisputable prior right to the brand.

 2. The disputed mark is highly similar to the mark cited by the applicant, which is extremely easy to cause confusion and false recognition to the relevant public, and the disputed mark shall be declared invalid.

 The comparison of the marks is as below:

The disputed mark is constituted by English words“MAULI RITUALS”, in which "RITUALS" is an inherent English word, meaning "procedure and ceremony", and has no actual representative meaning in the trademark. Therefore, the core word of the disputed mark is “MAULI”, and it is exactly the same with “MAULI” that is contained in the cited marks which are registered in the United Kingdom and some other countries and regions that are provided by the applicant. And they are exactly the same in terms of meaning and pronunciation, the disputed mark is highly similar to the cited mark, and the appearance of the disputed mark is exactly the same with that of the cited mark registered in China that is provided by the applicant, which is more likely to cause confusion and false recognition to the consumers.

 1. Both the designated goods of the disputed mark and of the cited mark provided by the applicant are well-known cosmetic goods items, which are obviously overlapping in the functions, usages, raw materials and consumer groups of the products, and they constitute similar goods items. The designated goods of the disputed mark and the products on which the cited marks are designated to be used constitute similar goods.

 2. The respondent, as a trademark preemptive registrant, obviously knows that the applicant's brand "MAULI" enjoys high popularity and influence. The respondent’s behaviour is a malicious registration act of copying and imitating well-known trademarks of others. Moreover, the disputed mark completely contains the core vocabulary of each cited mark that is provided by the applicant, so it can be considered that the respondent has improper intention. Furthermore, the respondent applied "MAULI" which is deliberately designed by the applicant and is highly original for registration. Such a coincidence could hardly happen. The respondent's malice of plagiarism and imitation was very apparent.

 3. The “MAULI” series brand have formed high popularity and influence through the applicant’s long-term promotion. Even clearly knowing the applicant’s series mark “MAULI” in advance, the respondent’s behaviour of registering a similar disputed mark to the cited mark is seriously in violation of Article 15 of the Trademark Law, and the disputed mark shall be declared invalid.

 According to Article 44.1, Article 44.3 and Article 46 of PRC Trademark Law, the CNIPA issued the decision and declared the disputed mark invalid.