For example, in 1998, China Merchants Bank applied for a "all-in-one-card" trademark, which was later rejected as not significant. Significantness was the absolute reason for rejecting the trademark. If the trademark was not significant, it would definitely not be registered. Later, China Merchants Bank re-examined the reason that
"all-in-one-card" was first named and used by China Merchants Bank. "All-in-one Card" does not directly describe the service items to be protected. The deep connection between China Merchants Bank and "One Card" has been known to the public, so it is requested to approve the application for trademark registration.
The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, through collegial discussion, believes that although the word "one card" for applying for a trademark has certain narrative characteristics for the service items such as "financial services, savings banks, credit cards", after long-term use and extensive publicity by the applicant, the word "one card" has established close contact with the applicant, and it has played a role in identifying the source of services. And there is no evidence that other financial institutions used the word "one card" in similar services when China Merchants Bank registered the trademark. The trademark applied for has obtained remarkable characteristics after use and is easy to identify. Therefore, the application for a trademark can be preliminarily examined and approved. Finally, China Merchants Bank successfully re-examined and obtained the exclusive rights of the "one card" trademark in 36 categories.
Therefore, even if the trademark is rejected for absolute reasons, it is possible to successfully review it, but it is only possible, not certain. The specific situation should be analyzed according to the rejection notice document and the use of one's own name.