Yuan Qi Forest's Application for Registration of Japanese "Wei" Graphic Trademark Rejected

qi forestEstablished in2016year, yes.a familySet independent research and development, design in one of the innovative beverage company. Because Japanese is used in product packagingThe word "qi" replaces the Chinese word "qi", and the back of the bottle is also marked "produced by Japan's national company yuan qi forest", which makes many consumers think that yuan qi forest is a Japanese product at first, but in fact yuan qi forest is a domestic brand.

Recently, the Beijing Higher People's Court issued a statement against Beijing Yuanqi Forest Beverage Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yuanqi Forest Company) in the No.35Application for registration on services such as advertising33084962The final judgment was made in the case of the rejection of the "Yang" graphic trademark, rejecting the appeal of Yuanqi Forest Beverage Co., Ltd., and upholding the original judgment made by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.

It is understood that the forest company in.2018Year8Month23I applied for registration on the 1st33084962No. "" graphic, but the State Intellectual Property Office to sue for trademark composition.2013Articles 30 and 31 of the Trademark Law in 2002 decided to reject the trademark application of Yuanqi Forest Company.

2013Article 30 of the Trademark Law of 2002 stipulates that if a trademark applied for registration does not conform to the relevant provisions of this Law or is identical or similar to a trademark registered or preliminarily approved by another person on the same commodity or similar commodities, the Trademark Office shall reject the application and shall not announce it. Article 31 stipulates that if two or more trademark registration applicants apply for registration with the same or similar trademarks on the same kind of goods or similar goods, they shall preliminarily approve and announce the trademark applied for earlier; if they apply on the same day, they shall preliminarily approve and announce the use of the earlier trademark, and reject the application of others and shall not be announced.

Yuanqi Forest Company refused to accept the decision and filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. The court held that the focus of the dispute in the case was whether the disputed trademark and the cited trademarks constituted similar trademarks used on the same or similar services. Compared with the prominent identification words of each cited trademark, the disputed trademark is easily identified and called."Qi", the call is similar, and the meaning and appearance of the disputed trademark and the cited trademark are also similar, which has constituted an approximate trademark used on the same or similar services, and the judgment rejected the claim of Yuanqi Forest Company.

After that, Yuanqi Forest Company appealed to the Beijing Higher People's Court against the judgment of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. According to the Beijing Higher People's Court, trademark approximation refers to the composition and color of the words, pronunciation, meaning or graphics of the trademark, or the overall structure of the combination of its various elements is similar, or its three-dimensional shape, color combination is similar. To determine whether a trademark is similar, it is necessary to consider not only the constituent elements of the trademark and the degree of approximation of the trademark as a whole, but also the significance of the relevant trademark, the degree of relevance of the goods or services used, etc., and whether it is easy to cause confusion as the criterion. The trademark in dispute is"Qi" is the same as the "Qi" of the cited trademark 1 and the "Qi" of the prominent identification part of the cited trademark 2, and has similar meanings. Therefore, if the disputed trademark and the cited trademark are used in the same or similar services such as cafes at the same time, it is easy for the relevant public to think that their services come from the same subject or there is some specific connection between their source subjects, thus causing confusion and misunderstanding. The State Intellectual Property Office and the original trial court determined the composition of the disputed trademark and the cited trademark.2013The use of similar trademarks for the same or similar services as stipulated in Articles 30 and 31 of the Trademark Law in 2002 is not improper. The relevant reasons for the appeal of Yuanqi Forest Company are lack of factual and legal basis. The final judgment of the Beijing High Court rejected the appeal of Yuanqi Forest Company and upheld the original judgment.