Recently, our firm won the first instance of an administrative litigation for trademark refusal appeal dispute. The court of first instance decided to revoke the appeal decision made by China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) on refusal of the trademark application, and ordered the CNIPA make a new decision on the plaintiff's application for appeal.
In this case, the trademark in dispute is an English trademark, which contains the word "Nano". The CNIPA held that the applied mark is a pure word mark, and it is easy to be divided into two parts by the general public for identification. "Nano" can be translated into "nanotechnology". If the word is used and registered as a trademark on the goods "manganese dioxide; nickel oxide, etc.", it is likely to cause misunderstanding among the relevant public on the technology, efficacy and other characteristics of the goods, which constitutes the circumstance prescribed in the Item (7), Paragraph 1, Article 10 of the Trademark Law.
The trademark applicant was not satisfied with the above decision and entrusted our firm to file an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. In the lawsuit, we argued that the trademark in dispute is an integral and indivisible fanciful word. Based on the life experience of the general public, the general public will not identify the trademark in dispute by dividing it groundlessly. Moreover, the relevant public is not familiar with the word "Nano", and they will neither associate it with the meaning of nanotechnology, nor will they misunderstand the technical characteristics of the designated goods of the trademark in dispute. In addition, we provided many similar judicial cases and registered trademarks which contain "Nano" on similar goods to support our point of view.  
The court of first instance held that the trademark in dispute was composed of foreign letters, which had no fixed meaning. In combination with the general cognitive level and cognitive habits of the relevant Chinese public, it is not easy to understand the trademark in dispute is having a meaning related to nanotechnology when making an overall judgment. Therefore, the use of the trademark in dispute on manganese dioxide and other goods is not likely to cause the relevant public to misunderstand the characteristics of the technology and efficiency of the goods, which does not constitute the circumstance in prescribed in the Item (7), Paragraph 1, Article 10 of the Trademark Law. The accused decision was wrong in the determination and should be corrected.