——The Court Determined the Applied Mark is not Similar to the Cited Mark, and Cancelled the Decision of Made by the CNIPA
Recently, our firm represented and won an administrative lawsuit for appeal of refusal of trademark application. In this case, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) determined that the applied mark and the cited mark were similar and rejected the registration application of the applied mark. Our firm filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court on behalf of the applicant, and the Beijing Intellectual Property Court ruled in the first instance judgment that the applied mark and the cited mark were not similar, and revoked the decision made by the CNIPA. The appeal period of this case has expired and no notice of appeal has been received from the CNIPA, and the judgment should now take effect.
In the current trademark judicial practice, the proportion of reversal of judgments in administrative litigation for appeal of trademark refusal is not high, and most of them are due to changes in circumstances such as cancellation or invalidation of the cited marks in the course of litigation. It is very rare for the judgment to be reversed due to different determinations on the similarity of trademarks. In this case, we explained and emphasized that the applied mark composed of Chinese characters with design is quite different from the cited mark which is foreign-language trademark in terms of overall appearance, constituent elements, pronunciation, etc., and the coexistence of the marks will not cause confusion among the relevant public about the source of the goods, which was supported by the court.
Recently, our firm represented and won an administrative lawsuit for appeal of refusal of trademark application. In this case, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) determined that the applied mark and the cited mark were similar and rejected the registration application of the applied mark. Our firm filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court on behalf of the applicant, and the Beijing Intellectual Property Court ruled in the first instance judgment that the applied mark and the cited mark were not similar, and revoked the decision made by the CNIPA. The appeal period of this case has expired and no notice of appeal has been received from the CNIPA, and the judgment should now take effect.
In the current trademark judicial practice, the proportion of reversal of judgments in administrative litigation for appeal of trademark refusal is not high, and most of them are due to changes in circumstances such as cancellation or invalidation of the cited marks in the course of litigation. It is very rare for the judgment to be reversed due to different determinations on the similarity of trademarks. In this case, we explained and emphasized that the applied mark composed of Chinese characters with design is quite different from the cited mark which is foreign-language trademark in terms of overall appearance, constituent elements, pronunciation, etc., and the coexistence of the marks will not cause confusion among the relevant public about the source of the goods, which was supported by the court.