Our company: Beijing Fineland IP Firm, entrusted by the limited liability company BENDUO LLC, on the basis of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China Article 33, the relevant provisions of the trademark office, the name of the applicant for EASYGO SHOE CARE LIMITED designated in the class 3 goods application no. 57842687 "SHOOZAS" trademark objection, request the trademark office to reject the trademark registration application and receive the final success.

Trademark contrast picture：

 In this case, the objection "EASYGO SHOE CARE LIMITED" is a Hong Kong company, from June 2021 to February 2022, in less than a year by the objection registered 37 trademarks, 37 trademarks involving 44 brands, the registration has exceeded the requirements of the normal operation; and the trademark is malicious copying foreign brands, even in the design, the "near the famous brand", "free ride" subjective malice is obvious. It is the visible purpose of the registered trademark and is not used but the trademark as a commodity trading, which disrupts the normal trademark registration management order, damages to the market order of fair competition, and violates the principle of good faith. According to the Trademark Law, article 4, article 7, article 7) and the first paragraph of article 44, the demurred trademark shall not be approved for registration.

 "SHOOZAS" uses the brand first as the dissident, and has established a high popularity in China before the registration of the demurred trademark; the demurred trademark has the same text, designates to use in the prior use of highly related similar goods and belongs to register a trademark that has been used by others by improper means and has certain influence, which violates the provisions of Article 32 of the Trademark Law, and shall not be approved for registration.

 By dissent people repeatedly malicious squatting dissent trademark, registered trademark is prominent with others the same or similar, and has no malicious registered trademark behavior for the purpose of use, which is easy to cause market chaos, disrupts the order of the socialist market economy, and has adverse effects. In violation of the Trademark Law, Article 4, Article 7, Article 10 first (8), the provisions of Article 44, the trademark should not be approved for registration.

 The dissent person knows that the dissident uses the brand trademark first and registers the trademark with exactly the same words on the similar goods used by the dissident first. The coexistence of the trademarks of both parties in the market can easily cause confusion and misidentification. In violation of the provisions of Paragraph 2 of Article 15 of the Trademark Law, the dissent trademark shall not be approved and registered.

        In this case, the dissident brand has a high popularity through the continuous use and publicity of the dissident, and has formed a unique designated relationship with the dissident. In addition, the text of the opposed trademark is exactly the same as the text of the dissident trademark, with the same identity in the market, which is easy to make the public for dissent series trademark or a specific association, thus to the source of goods and quality confusion misidentification. So the violation of article 10 of the "Trademark Law" (7) of the first paragraph,  objected trademark should not be approved for registration.

 According to Article 30 and Article 35 of the Trademark Law, the CNIPA decides that the trademark "SHOOZAS" No.57842687 shall not be registered.