It is understood that the objected trademark was applied for registration by Nanguan Company to the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Office) on October 26th, 20 10, and was designated for use on 19 products such as ceramic tiles and nonmetallic floor tiles. 20111kloc-0/0. On 6 October, the Trademark Office announced the preliminary examination and approval results of the objected trademarks.
20 12 1.6 is the last day of the legal objection period of the objected trademark. Watsons Enterprise Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Watsons Company) filed an objection application with the Trademark Office, claiming that the registration of the objected trademark and the "Watsons" trademark No.774065 previously approved for registration constitute similar trademarks used in similar goods or services in promoting industries (for others) and other 35 services. At the same time, it preemptively registered its used and influential trademarks by improper means, which damaged its prior trade name right. In addition, Nanguan Company's application for registration of the objected trademark violates the principle of honesty and trustworthiness, disturbs the market economic order and damages socialist morality.
After examination, the Trademark Office indicated that Watson's objection was not established, and the objected trademark was registered. Watson's company refused to accept it, and on May 3 of the same year, it applied to the Trademark Registration Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board) for review.
On April 2014 15, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board made a reexamination ruling and approved the registration of the challenged trademark. Watson's company refused to accept it, and then filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court, but its claim was rejected by the court's first-instance judgment. Subsequently, Watsons appealed to the Beijing Higher People's Court.
It is reported that during the trial of the second instance of the case, Watsons Company submitted the enterprise machine-readable file registration materials and the enterprise credit information publicity report of Nanguan Company, which showed that Nanguan Company was cancelled on April 2065438+2 1 day, 2004, because the shareholders' meeting and shareholders' meeting resolved to dissolve it. Watsons claims that Nanguan Company cancelled the registration of the objected trademark and did not transfer it before cancellation, so the objected trademark should not be registered.
After trial, the Beijing Higher People's Court held that the exclusive right to trademark registration, as a civil right, should be enjoyed and exercised by the subject with the qualification of civil subject. The evidence submitted by Watsons Company can prove that Nanguan Company, the applicant of the objected trademark, has been cancelled on April 2065438+2 1 2004, and its subject qualification has been lost. There is no evidence to prove that Nanguan Company has gone through the formalities for changing the applicant of the objected trademark before cancellation, so the objected trademark should not be approved for registration without the applicant.
Accordingly, the final judgment of the court revoked the first-instance judgment and reexamination ruling made by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, and ordered the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to make a new ruling on Watson's application for reexamination of trademark registration objections.
According to the relevant provisions of China's Guide to the Trial of Administrative Cases of Trademark Authorization and Confirmation, if the business license of the enterprise applying for registration of the objected trademark has been revoked but the cancellation procedures have not been completed, and the following conditions are met, the trademark may not be approved for registration according to the provisions of Article 4 of China's current Trademark Law: when the administrative ruling is made, the business license of the enterprise applying for registration of the objected trademark has been revoked for more than 3 years; There is no evidence that the objected trademark has been transferred or licensed to others; The enterprise applying for the registration of the objected trademark did not participate in the trademark review and subsequent litigation procedures, nor did it explain its enterprise status and the objected trademark or put forward relevant claims; The objected trademark is a copy and imitation of the cited trademark, and there is a certain relationship between the two designated commodities.
Bajie Zhichan suggested that relevant professionals should be consulted on trademark issues. Zhejiang Bajie Intellectual Property Trademark Transfer Network, you can call the 24-hour customer service hotline or choose your favorite trademark in person in Zhejiang!