This case has the following controversial focus: Does the objected trademark lack distinctive features?

In this case, the objected trademark is composed of the Chinese characters of "WeChat" and is designated for the 38th category of "information transmission, telephone service, telephone communication, mobile telephone communication, e-mail, fax transmission, telecommunication information, providing global computer network user access services (service providers), and providing telecommunication channels for telephone shopping and voice mail services". "Micro" means "small" and "little". When it is used in combination with the word "letter" in the above-mentioned service items, it is easy to be understood by the relevant public as a shorter and more convenient information communication mode than common communication modes such as e-mail and SMS, and it is a direct description of the functions, uses or other characteristics of the above-mentioned services, and it is not easy for the relevant public to recognize it and regard it as a trademark to distinguish service sources. Therefore, the objected trademark is used for the above services. The evidence submitted by Chuangbo Asia Pacific Company is not enough to prove that the objected trademark has established a stable corresponding relationship with Chuangbo Asia Pacific Company after use, so that the objected trademark can distinguish the service sources.