Company newsLocation:Home - News - Company news

Fineland IP Firm and China Southern Airlines Research Institute reached a strategic cooperation to jointly establish

The plaintiff Deng Zhaoxuan and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (referred to as the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board) on the "Duo Miqi DMQ and Map" trademark (referred to as the trademark dispute) for the administrative disputes of the 20,663,037, by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court in 2018 On April 9th, the trial was held in public, and the judgment was abolished by the Commercial Appraisal Committee [2017] No. 165137, "No. 20663037 "Duo Miqi DMQ and Map" trademark rejection review decision" and made a new decision.

[Trademark Information]

Claiming trademark:

Approved products: cod liver oil, lysine powder, baby food, nutritional supplements, baby milk powder, medical nutrition, baby diapers, disinfecting paper towels, sanitary napkins, dental abrasives


Approved products: mosquito coils, anti-itch water, patches, ointments, baby food, baby formula, baby diapers, disinfectant paper towels, insect repellent, skin care agents

[Introduction to the case]

The trademark of the dispute was filed by Deng Zhaoxuan on July 15, 2016. The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board issued the trademark of [2017] No. 165137 on the "Tuo Miqi DMQ and Map" trademark on December 26, 2017. Reject the decision of the review. The plaintiff refused to accept this decision and filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. The court found that the decision to revoke the decision and re-take the decision was made. Our company's lawyers and clients (the plaintiff) won the first trial of the case.

【Court decision】

Article 30 of the Trademark Law stipulates that: a trademark applied for registration shall be rejected by the Trademark Office if it is the same or similar to a trademark already registered or initially examined by another person on the same commodity or similar commodity. The focus of this case is whether the trademark and the cited trademark constitute an approximate trademark. Trademark approximation refers to the approximation of the glyph, pronunciation, meaning or graphic appearance of the trademark text, or the overall arrangement and appearance of the combination of text and graphics, and the appearance is similar. The use of the same or similar products may cause the relevant public to misunderstand the source of the goods. recognize.

In this case, although the text part of the trademark of the trademark “Duo Mi Qi” and the text part of the reference trademark “哆咪奇” are similar in the call, the overall comparison shows that the trademark and the cited trademark are in terms of text and visual effects. There is a certain gap. Therefore, although the words of the two trademarks are pronounced the same, they are still distinguishable as a whole and do not constitute an approximate trademark. The final judgment abolished the commercial commentary [2017] No. 125292 of the Defendant's Commercial Appraisal Committee, and decided to re-take the decision on the trademark rejection of No. 20663037 “Duo Miqi DMQ and Map”.