Beijing Ozark Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the opponent) filed a lawsuit against China Patent Agency (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd. as an agent for Wal-Mart Chain Store Company (hereinafter referred to as the opponent), which was preliminarily reviewed and approved by our Office and published in the The 810th issue of "Trademark Announcement" No. 1725575 raised an objection to the "0ZARK TRAIL" trademark, and our office will accept it in accordance with Article 30 of the "Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China". The respondent has responded within the prescribed time limit. The opponent's reason for the objection: "OZARK" is a registered trademark owned by Swiss Levegaard Co., Ltd., a world-renowned manufacturer of outdoor sports products. Its products enjoy a high reputation in the industry. The company has registered a series of trademarks such as "OZARK" in China on clothing, backpacks and other outdoor sports-related products. The opposed trademark "OZARK TRAIL" is similar to the cited trademark in both text and product structure, which can easily cause confusion and misunderstanding among consumers. The opposed trademark is a malicious imitation of the cited trademark and is an act of unfair competition that violates the principle of good faith. The respondent's defense: "OZARK" refers to an Indian tribe living in the United States and has become the name of this mountainous area. It should not be exclusively used by the respondent family. The opposed trademark "OZARK TRAIL" has very different meanings from the cited trademark, and there are huge differences in the overall appearance of the second trademark, so it does not constitute a similar trademark. The goods designated by the two trademarks are not substitutable or specifically complementary in terms of their uses and functions. Therefore, the goods using the two trademarks are not similar goods. The simultaneous use of the two trademarks will not cause confusion and confusion among consumers. Misidentification. As one of the world's leading large-scale retailers, the respondent has used the "OZARK TRAIL" trademark in the United States for nearly ten years, earlier than the owner of the cited trademark. The respondent's "OZARK TRAIL" trademark has been applied for in 12 categories in China, 10 of which have been registered. It can be seen that the opposed trademark is an extension of a trademark that has been used before, rather than deliberately imitating other people's trademarks. Based on the facts and reasons stated by the parties, our office believes that the opposed trademark "OZARK TRAIL" is designated for use on Category 6 "metal tent poles; metal washers; metal rivets" and other commodities. The trademark "OZARK" cited by the opponent has no prior registration in Class 6. The trademarks of both parties have different English compositions and different meanings, and the overall visual effects are obviously different. Ordinary consumers can clearly distinguish the two from their appearance and meaning. The functions and uses of the goods designated by the trademarks of both parties are different, and they are not similar goods. Therefore, the two trademarks do not constitute similar trademarks used on similar goods. The opposed trademark should not cause confusion and misunderstanding among ordinary consumers in actual use. The opponent claimed that the opposed trademark was a plagiarism and imitation of someone else’s trademark, but did not provide evidence to prove it. Therefore, our office does not support the objection raised by the opponent. According to Article 33 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, our office ruled that the objection raised by the opponent was not valid, and the trademark No. 1725575 "0ZARK TRAIL" was approved for registration.