According to regulations related to Article 33 of PRC Trademark Law, our company, Beijing Fineland IP Firm, entrusted by IRLOTEX EUROPE 2 SLU filed opposition action against trademark "IRLOTEX" (No.51313245) which was applied by Xiamen Granville Mechanical and Electrical Co., Ltd. and designated to be used on the commodity Class 21 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 our rights.
1.The composition of the words of the opposed trademark is exactly the same as the composition of the words of the opponent's business name, and it is used on similar commodities which are highly related to the opponent's main business for a long time, the coexistence in the market will inevitably lead to confusion and false recognition to the relevant public, which will associate the opposed trademark with the opponent, resulting in the damage to the interests of the opponent. The word expression form of the opposed trademark is completely taken from the prior art work of the opponent, thus the registration of the opposed trademark infringes the prior business name right and copyright of the opponent, and belongs to the pre-registration of the trademark already used by others and has certain influence by unfair means. According to the provisions of Article 32 of the Trademark Law, the opposed trademark shall not be approved for registration.
2.Before the filing date of the opposed trademark, the opponent was in explicit trade contact with the opposed party Xiamen Granville Mechanical and Electrical Co., Ltd. and its affiliated company Gilps (Xiamen) Industrial Co., Ltd. Knowing the same brand with the opponent's business name in advance, the opposed party still registered the opposed mark with the exactly same word composition on similar goods with high relevance that the opponent has long been engaged in. It seriously violates Article 15.2 of the Trademark Law, and the opposed trademark shall not be approved for registration.
3.The opposed party repeatedly copied and imitated the famous brand of the opponent, maliciously registered the opposed trademark and even had the behaviour of maliciously registering trademarks without the purpose of real usage, which can easily cause market chaos, and disturb the economic order of socialist market, and cause enormous economic losses to the opponent and have great bad influence on consumers. It violates Article 4, Article 7, Article 10.1(8), Article 44 of the Trademark Law, and the opposed trademark shall not be approved for registration.
4. In this case, the brand of the opponent has a high reputation through the opponent’s continuous usage and publicity. In addition, the opposed trademark and the opponent's business name has the same word composition, 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.
According to Article 7, Article 30 and Article 35 of the Trademark Law, the CNIPA issued the decision: the opposed trademark "IRLOTEX" (No. 51313245) was ruled to be rejected for registration.