Hello,

Article 10, paragraph 1, item (8) of the second revised Trademark Law stipulates that if it is harmful to socialist morals or has other adverse effects, May not be used as a trademark. When reviewing and judging whether the applied trademark constitutes a situation that has other adverse effects, consideration should be given to whether the applied trademark or its constituent elements may have an impact on China’s political, economic, cultural, religious, ethnic and other social public interests and public order. Negative, negative impact. In this case, the opposed trademark was "Snowpeak", which itself was not derogatory or contained other negative connotations, nor would it be harmful to socialist morals or have other adverse effects. Therefore, in this case, it was not appropriate to break through the second amendment of the trademark Article 10, paragraph 1 (8) of the Trademark Law stipulates the standard for judging whether the elements of the mark itself have adverse effects. It is inappropriate to determine that the application for registration of the opposed trademark violates Article 10, paragraph 1 (8) of the second revised Trademark Law. item provisions.

Article 41, Paragraph 1, of the Second Amendment to the Trademark Law stipulates: “A registered trademark violates the provisions of Articles 10, 11, and 12 of this Law, or is registered by deceptive means. If registration is obtained by other improper means, the Trademark Office shall revoke the registered trademark; other units or individuals may request the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to cancel the registered trademark. "Some people believe that this paragraph is about a registered trademark that violates the relevant provisions of the Trademark Law. As a result of the provisions being revoked, if the disputed trademark in the trademark opposition review procedure has not yet been approved for registration, Article 41, paragraph 1, of the Second Amendment to the Trademark Law should not be applied. However, this opinion only interprets the relevant content literally. Trademark law is a complete system. When reviewing and applying this provision, in addition to the literal meaning of the provision, the original legislative intent of the trademark law should also be considered. The legislative intent of Article 41, Paragraph 1, of the Second Amendment to the Trademark Law is to protect the order of trademark registration and regulate behaviors that undermine the order of trademark registration such as "obtaining registration by deception or other improper means". If the registered trademark belongs to " "Obtaining registration by deception or other unfair means" and other behaviors that undermine the order of trademark registration should be revoked. For unregistered trademarks, if they fall into this situation, they should not be approved for registration. This is the intended meaning of this article. . Therefore, although the trademark being opposed in this case has not yet been approved for registration, if the parties clearly make corresponding claims, the People's Court should determine whether it is an act that disrupts the order of trademark registration such as "obtaining registration by deception or other unfair means". Review judgment. When reviewing and judging whether the trademark in dispute falls under the "registration by other improper means" stipulated in this paragraph, consideration must be given to whether it is a matter other than deceptive means that disrupts the order of trademark registration, harms the interests of the public, and improperly occupies the public domain. Use resources or otherwise seek improper benefits. In addition, according to the relevant provisions of the Trademark Law, civil subjects applying for registered trademarks should have the true intention of using them to meet their own needs for trademark use, and their actions in applying for registered trademarks should be reasonable and legitimate. According to the facts found in the case, the original applicant of the opposed trademark, Xiyu Outdoor Company, is a professional company engaged in the production and sales of outdoor products. On the same day, it applied for registration of more than 30 items related to outdoor products related to well-known foreign outdoor products. A trademark with a similar brand of supplies was transferred to a natural person, Mr. Luo, on the same day. However, Mr. Luo had not carried out actual production and business activities since he registered as an individual industrial and commercial household on May 31, 2011, and had not accepted the 2011, In the 2012 industrial and commercial annual inspection, it was found that it had no real intention to use the opposed trademark. It was an act of registering and hoarding trademarks in large quantities. It did not have the legitimacy that a registered trademark should have. It was obviously a situation that disrupted the order of trademark registration. Therefore, the objection The application for registration falls under the circumstances of "obtaining registration by other improper means" stipulated in Article 41, Paragraph 1 of the Second Amendment to the Trademark Law, and the opposed trademark trademark should not be approved for registration. Therefore, the court of second instance supported Xuefeng Co., Ltd.’s claim that the application for registration of the opposed trademark violated the provisions of Article 41, paragraph 1, of the Second Amendment to the Trademark Law.

Hope it helps you and hope you will adopt it