In 2024, the trademark application numbers begin with the number "7", while the trademark status of the application number beginning with the number "3" in this case is still in an unknown state of rights. Trademark registration for a long time, how many people will lose confidence in similar trademarks, difficult to continue?

The trademark in dispute in this case was submitted for trademark registration on November 08, 2018. After the first, second and retrial procedures, the retrial judgment was finally made on February 07, 2024. The judgment the People's Republic of China the State Intellectual Property Office to make a new review decision on the trademark "SUPREME" No. 34537137.

 

1. Trademark Dispute

 

Application number: 34537137

Application date: 2018-11-08

Application category: 09

Commodity items: 78 minor items in total

Abandonment items: 0901 USB flash drives; Special bag for portable computer; Tablet PC sleeve; Intelligent glasses (data processing); Mouse (computer peripheral equipment);0905 measuring tools; 0906 electronic bulletin board; 0910 atomic ray instrument; Cyclotron; Cosmological instruments; Missile control box; Industrial or military metal detectors; Complete sets of electrical calibration devices; Dummy for impact tests; Teaching instruments; Material inspection instruments and machines; nuclear atomic power station control system; nuclear instrument; measuring instrument; electron cyclotron; scientific satellite; scientific detector; diaphragm for scientific device; particle accelerator; distance recorder; odometer for vehicle; vehicle driving and control simulator; Non-medical lasers; non-medical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) devices; 0913 semiconductors; printed circuits; plugs, sockets and other contactors (electrical connections); magnets; video display screen; remote control device; 0914 thermal conditioning device; 0915 electrolysis device; 0918 industrial radiation equipment; 0922 battery; battery charger; mobile power supply (rechargeable battery);

 

Divided approved registration items: 0902 dictation machine; Mechanical devices for coin-operated starting equipment; Voting machine; Lottery machine; Dress hem welt marker; Postmark inspection device; 0913 optical fiber (optical fiber);0914 lightning arrester; 0924 portable remote control car stop; Dog whistle; Egg irradiator; Electric fence; Decorative magnet; Electronic collar for training animals; Sports whistle.

 

Review items: 0902 face recognition equipment; Hologram; Time recording device; Money points and sorting machine; 0903 fax equipment; 0904 measuring equipment; Self-timer for 0907 mobile phones; Smart phone covers; 0908 headphones; Speaker box; 0909 camera (photography);0911 optical equipment and instruments; 0912 cables; 0916 fire extinguishing equipment; 0919 safety helmets; Goggles; 0920 electronic anti-theft device; 0921 sunglasses; glasses; glasses case; contact lens case; 0923 slides (photographic);

Notice of Rejection Issued: 2019-09-19

Citation of trademarks: 27

Review application: 2020-10-15

 

2. First Instance Procedure

 

The court of first instance held that:

As of the first instance judgment in this case, the cited trademark 25 was decided not to be accepted, has been invalid, and no longer constitutes an obstacle to the right to obtain the registration of the disputed trademark.

All the other cited trademarks are still the previously validly registered or applied for trademarks.It still constitutes a prior right obstacle to the preliminary examination of the trademark registration application in dispute. The disputed trademark and the cited trademark 20 to 24, 26 and 27 have constituted similar trademarks on the same or similar goods. The claim that the trademark in dispute has a very high profile is not supported by the court of first instance.

 

Judgment of First Instance:

In accordance with the provisions of Article 69 of the the People's Republic of China Administrative Procedure Law, the court of first instance ruled that:Reject the claims of Chapter 4 Company.

 

3.second instance procedure

 

The court of second instance held that:

check one,The registration of citation trademark 20 on "antenna, camera tripod, waterproof clothing, glasses case, battery aluminum plate" has been revoked and announced. Citation trademarks 21, 22 and 24 are still valid. Citation trademarks 23 and 25 are no longer valid. The application for registration of citation trademark 26 on "complete set of tools for inner tube repair and bicycle pump" has been preliminarily approved and announced, the remaining goods are rejected; citation of trademark 27 on "wires, video display screens, power plug converters, remote control devices, protective masks for workers, protective masks, mobile power supplies (rechargeable batteries), storage batteries for vehicles, currency detectors, face recognition equipment, Measuring tools, car phone holders, navigation instruments for vehicles (on-board computers), smart phone shells, cameras (photography), surveying and mapping instruments, speedometers for vehicles" the application for registration has been preliminarily approved and announced, the rest of the goods were dismissed.Another check two,In the rejection review procedure, a company explicitly gave up the disputed trademark in addition to "time recording devices, money points and sorting machines, holograms, face recognition equipment, fax equipment, measuring instruments, smart phone covers, self-timer levers for mobile phones, headphones, speakers, cameras (photography), optical instruments and instruments, cables, fire extinguishing equipment, safety helmets, goggles, electronic anti-theft devices, glasses, sunglasses, registration applications on rejected goods other than glasses cases, contact lens cases, slides (photography).

In this case, the "time recording device, money point and sorting machine, hologram, face recognition equipment, fax equipment, measuring device, smart phone sleeve, self-timer stick for mobile phone, headset, speaker box, camera (photography), optical instruments and instruments, cable, fire extinguishing equipment, safety helmet, goggles, electronic anti-theft device, glasses, sunglasses, glasses case, contact lens case, slide (photography)" and other review commodities are the same or similar in terms of functional use, production department, consumer groups, sales channels, etc. except for "antenna, camera tripod, waterproof clothing, glasses case, battery aluminum plate" approved for use, commodities designated for use by citation trademarks 21, 22, and 24, and commodities preliminarily approved for use by citation trademarks 26 and 27, belong to the same or similar goods. The disputed trademark consists of English "Supreme", which is the same word as the English "Supreme" of the prominent identification part of the cited trademark 20, and the English "SUPREME" and "Supreme" of the cited trademarks 21, 22 and 24, with the same letter composition, call and meaning. The cited trademarks 26 and 27 are also easy to be read as "Supreme", there is no obvious difference between the disputed trademark and the cited trademark 20, 21, 22, 24, 26 and 27 as a whole, and the coexistence of the same or similar goods mentioned above is easy to cause confusion and misunderstanding by relevant consumers. The first-instance judgment and the accused decision have found that they have constituted the circumstances stipulated in Articles 30 and 31 of the Trademark Law respectively. The relevant appeal claims that the second instance will not support it.

 

Judgment result of second instance:

To sum up, the result of the first instance judgment is correct. Chapter four of the company's appeal request lack of basis, the second instance will not support. In accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 89 of the the People's Republic of China Administrative Procedure Law, the judgment: reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

 

4. againReview Procedure

Cited Trademark

​(I) Citation Trademark XX

1. Registrant: a group company

2. Registration number: 891090

3. Application Date: January 18, 1995

4. Registration notice date: October 28, 1996

5. Upon renewal, the exclusive right is valid until October 27, 2026

7. Approved commodities (Category 9, similar to group 0902-0904;0906-0911;0914-0916;0919-0920;0923): disk; Abacus; Attendance machine; Platform scales, etc.

8. Trademark status: revoked invalid

(II) Citation Trademark XXI

1. Registrant: a glasses company

2. Registration number: 19570022

3. Application Date: April 8, 2016

4. Registration announcement date: June 21, 2020

5. The exclusive right is valid until February 20, 2029

7. Approved commodities (category 9, similar to group 0921): glasses; Glasses; Glasses frames, etc.

8.Trademark Status: Invalidation Trademark Invalidation

(III) City of Trademark XXII

1. Registrant: a glasses company

2. Registration number: 23056650

3. Application Date: March 7, 2017

4. Registration announcement date: July 7, 2020

5. The exclusive right is valid until November 27, 2028

7. Approved commodities (category 9, similar to group 0921): corrective lenses (optics); Glasses; Glasses, etc.

8. Trademark status: Invalidation of trademark

(IV) Citation Trademark XXIII

1. Applicant: a clothing company

2. Application number: 28693121

3. Application Date: January 15, 2018

5. Designated commodities (Category 9, similar to group 0905;0912): measuring tools; USB cable.

6.Trademark status: invalid due to objection

(V) Trademark 21V

1. Registrant: a technology company

2. Registration number: 28761652

3. Application Date: January 17, 2018

4. Registration announcement date: October 7, 2020

5. The exclusive right is valid until May 13, 2029

7. Goods approved for use (category 9, similar to group 0902): holograms.

8.Trademark Status: Registered

(VI) XXV

1. Applicant: a partnership.

2. Application number: 32448512

3. Application Date: July 24, 2018

5. Designated commodities (Category 9, similar group 0901; Similar groups to be deleted: 0902;0907-0909;0912;0919;0921-0922): downloadable computer application software, etc.

6. Trademark status: inadmissible trademark is invalid

(VII) XXV

1. Applicant: an industry and trade company

2. Application number: 33128786

3. Application Date: August 27, 2018

5. Designated commodities (category 12, similar to group 1202;1204;1206;1208;1211): anti-theft alarm for vehicles, etc.

6. Trademark status: invalid due to objection

(VIII) Quoted Trademark XXVII

1. Applicant: a trading company

2. Application number: 33128914

3. Application Date: August 27, 2018

5. Designated commodities (Category 9, similar to group 0901-0913;0916;0919-0922): downloadable mobile phone application software; Downloadable computer application software, etc.

6.Trademark status: invalid due to objection

 

During the retrial, the company in chapter four reclaimed,

The 0902 group was abandoned in the second instance, so the citation of trademark twenty-four should not constitute a prior obstacle.

and submitted three pieces of evidence to the court,

Evidence one, trademark withdrawal three wordsNo. Y018081 "on the 9th category of" four seas and one race "No. 891090; The decision of the SUPREME" registered trademark not to use the revocation application for three consecutive years "is used to prove that in the revocation review, in view of the unstable state of the cited trademark 20, the court is requested to suspend the trial of the case until its final state is determined.

Evidence 2, the first-instance judgment of the administrative litigation for invalidation of cited trademarks 21 and 22 is used to prove that in the second-instance procedure of the administrative litigation for invalidation of cited trademarks 21 and 22, in view of the unstable state of cited trademarks 21 and 22, the court is requested to suspend the trial of the case until its final state is determined.

Evidence 3, the decision not to register the cited trademarks 26 and 27 is used to prove that the cited trademarks 26 and 27 are not registered on all designated goods, and they no longer constitute an obstacle to the application for registration of the trademark in dispute.

After investigation, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court issued an administrative judgment (2022) No. 3440 at the beginning of Beijing 73 on April 26, 2023, which held that for trademarks that have been registered by improper means, the illegality of trademark registration shall not be changed by the transfer after trademark registration,Therefore, the registration of the trademark in dispute (trademark 19570022, I .e. trademark 21 cited in this case) violates the situation of "obtaining registration by other improper means" referred to in the first paragraph of Article 44 of the Trademark Law.To sum up, the accused ruled that the evidence was conclusive, the applicable laws and regulations were correct, and the legal procedures were in line with the legal procedures. The trademark owner's claim could not be established, and the Beijing Intellectual Property Court did not support it.The judgement has entered into force.

The administrative judgment (2022) No. 3443 issued by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court on April 26, 2023 held that for trademarks that have been registered by improper means, the illegality of trademark registration shall not be changed by the transfer after trademark registration,Therefore, the registration of the disputed trademark (trademark No. 23056650, I .e. trademark 22 cited in this case) violates the situation of "obtaining registration by other improper means" referred to in the first paragraph of Article 44 of the Trademark Law.To sum up, the accused ruled that the evidence was conclusive, the applicable laws and regulations were correct, and the legal procedures were in line with the legal procedures. The trademark owner's claim could not be established, and the Beijing Intellectual Property Court did not support it.The judgement has entered into force.

(2023) Trademark No. 13555 No. 33128786 "SUP-EME and drawings" in the decision not to register the trademarkCitation of Trademark XXVI Not to be Registered,The decision has entered into force.

(2023) Trademark No. 13560 No. 33128914 "SUP-EME and Drawing" Trademark Decision Not to Be RegisteredThe Citation Trademark XXVII shall not be registered, and the decision has entered into force.The above facts are supported by the decision not to register the trademark and the statements of the parties, which are confirmed by the court's retrial.

 

The retrial court held that:

When the judgment of the second instance of this case was made, the cited trademarks 21, 22, 26 and 27 were still the trademarks applied for earlier. The second instance judgment, based on the state of rights of the cited trademark at that time, found that the disputed trademark and the cited trademark 21, 22, 26 and 27 constituted similar trademarks used on the same or similar goods. Article 28 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases Concerning Trademark Authorization and Confirmation stipulates: "In the course of the trial of administrative cases concerning trademark authorization and confirmation, if the reason for the State Intellectual Property Office to reject, refuse to approve the registration or declare the trademark in dispute no longer exists, the people's court may revoke the relevant ruling of the State Intellectual Property Office based on new facts, and ordered it to make a new ruling based on the changed facts." According to the facts ascertained by the court in the retrial, after the judgment of the second instance was made, the ruling that the cited trademarks 21 and 22 were declared invalid has taken effect, and the cited trademarks 26 and 27 were decided not to be registered by the State Intellectual Property Office, and have also taken effect, and they no longer constitute obstacles to the prior rights of the disputed trademarks. In the case that the company in chapter 4 submits a retrial application based on new evidence and the court rules the retrial, the court shall, in accordance with the provisions of the aforementioned judicial interpretation, amend the original judgment, and the State Intellectual Property Office shall make a new review decision based on the changed facts. The litigation costs of the first, second and retrial of this case shall be borne by the company in chapter 4.

 

Results of retrial:

In accordance with Article 28 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases Concerning Trademark Authorization and Confirmation, Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 89 of the the People's Republic of China Administrative Procedure Law, and the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 119 and Article 122 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the the People's Republic of China Administrative Procedure Law, the judgment is as follows: 1. revoke Administrative Judgment No. 3538 of Beijing Higher People's Court (2021); 2. revoke Beijing Intellectual Property Court (2020) Administrative Judgment No. 12838 at the beginning of Beijing 73; The 3. revoked the the People's Republic of China State Intellectual Property Office Shang Ping Zi [2020] No. 106246 "Decision on Rejection of Trademark No. 34537137" SUPREME "; The 4. the People's Republic of China the State Intellectual Property Office to make a new review decision on the" SUPREME "trademark No. 34537137. The acceptance fees for the first, second and retrial cases are each 100 yuan, which are all borne by Chapter 4 Company (Chapter4Corp) (all paid). This judgment is final.

 

At this point, the proceedings in this case have come to an end. The owner of the trademark right in this case has submitted a trademark application since 2018 and still insists on the review even though 27 trademarks have been cited. After the review, it is still considered that there are 8 cited trademarks (cited trademarks 20 to 27) and the disputed trademarks are similar trademarks used on the same or similar goods, and the trademark owner has also adopted the methods of revocation, objection, invalidation and litigation to invalidate the cited trademarks, thus clearing the obstacles to the prior rights of the disputed trademarks, and then going through the procedures of first instance, second instance and retrial, in the end, it was not easy to achieve a more desirable result.