According to regulations related to Article 33 of PRC Trademark Law, our company, Beijing Fineland IP Firm, entrusted by HOCOS INC., filed opposition action against trademark "HYGEE" (No.47774700) which was applied by Hangzhou Fahema Import and Export Trading Co., Ltd. on the commodity category 35 and preliminarily examined and approved by the Trademark Office. Our company requested the Trademark Office to reject the registration of the trademark application, and finally succeeded in safeguarding its rights.
1. The trademark "HYGGEE" is a brand that is created and used for a long time by the opponent, which has established high popularity and influence in China before the date of the application of the opposed mark. The opposed trademark and the trademark "" (No.17766637) under the name of the opponent constitute similar trademark registered on similar goods. According to Article 30 of the Trademark Law, the opposed trademark shall not be approved for registration.
2.“HYGGEE” is the main brand of the opponent and has been successfully registered in Korea on June 8, 2016, and enjoys certain popularity and has high influence in the mainland before the date of the application of the opposed trademark. The opposed trademark is completely and highly similar to it in terms of text composition, and it is designated to use on similar goods, which belongs to "pre-registration of a trademark that has been used by others and has certain influence by improper means”, and violates the provision of Article 32 of the Trademark Law, and the registration shall not be approved.
3.The opposed party and the opponent are in the same industry. Knowing the opponent’s trademark“HYGGEE”in advance, the opposed party still registered a completely and highly similar trademark on similar goods that the opponent has long been engaged in. The coexistence of the two trademarks in the market is easy to cause confusion and false recognition. It violates Article 15.2 of the Trademark Law, and the opposed trademark shall not be approved for registration.
4.In this case, the“HYGGEE”brand of the opponent has a high reputation through the opponent’s continuous usage and publicity. In addition, the opposed trademark is similar to the cited trademark of the opponent, and it is difficult to design such a "similar" trademark without deliberate imitation. If the logos of both parties coexist in the market,it will easily cause the relevant public mistakenly believe that the opponent’s series trademarks may have a certain connection, thus causing confusion and false recognition of the source of goods. According to Article 10.1(7) of the Trademark Law, the opposed trademark shall not be approved for registration.
5.Except the opposed trademark in this case, there are many foreign famous brands was registered under the name of the opponent, and in the previous case the opponent has been identified of malicious hoarding behavior. The opposed party’s behaviour of registering others' trademarks without using them excessively occupies the high quality trademark resources of legal operators, and violates the basic social public morals and principles of honesty and credit. Objectively, it damages the registration order of trademarks in China and causes bad effect. Thus, it violates Article 4, Article 7, Article 10.1(8), Article 44.1 of the Trademark Law, and the opposed trademark shall not be approved for registration.
According to Article 30 and Article 35 of the Trademark Law, the CNIPA issued the decision: the opposed trademark "HYGEE" (No. 47774700) was ruled to be rejected for registration.