What are the stories about trademark squatting? Case 1 An objective description of the efficacy of a product does not constitute deception (Article 10 of the Trademark Law) Represented Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd. in a lawsuit against the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board for "Drinking Wanglaoji for fear of getting angry" Typical significance of trademark rejection review administrative dispute case This case is an advertisement Typical cases of whether a slang term can be registered as a trademark. After more than 10 years of continuous publicity and promotion, "Drink Wong Lao Kat for fear of getting angry" has become a household name. However, when the trademark was applied for registration, it was rejected by the Trademark Office and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board. The judgment in this case clarified the criteria for determining "deceptiveness" in Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item (7) of the Trademark Law, and ultimately determined that the trademark did not violate this provision. Case 2: Only being included in online dictionaries but not in professional dictionaries cannot prove its lack of distinctiveness (Article 11 of the Trademark Law). Represented Otomac Company against the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board "SeaFoam" trademark rejection review administrative dispute case with typical significance in the application for Trademark Review and Adjudication Board recognition. The literal meaning of the trademark is "sepiolite", and its use in designated products such as Category 4 "wetting oil" indicates the characteristics of the product's raw materials. During the litigation process, the attorney will cover many aspects including the etymology of the applied trademark word, word explanation, public awareness of the foreign trademark, the time of the word's creation, trademark use registration, consumer awareness, and the burden of proof of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board. It elaborated on the registrability of the applied trademark and proved that it has no connection with the meaning, expression, product nature, market recognition and other aspects of "sepiolite". It successfully overturned the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board's ruling and became the first person to overturn the lack of Typical cases of significance determination. Case 3 Cross-category protection of well-known trademarks for time-honored brands (Article 13 of the Trademark Law) Li, a natural person, sued the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and the third party Guangzhou Baiyunshan Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd. (Zhengli Agent) for review of the “Qixing” trademark objection Typical Significance of Administrative Dispute Cases This case is a typical case of protecting the legitimate rights and interests of time-honored brands through the well-known trademark legal system. It was selected as the "Excellent Agency Cases of 2016-2017" by the China Trademark Association. The judgment found that the cited trademark, as a time-honored brand, had been known to the relevant public before the application date of the disputed trademark, and constituted a well-known trademark used on human medicinal products. The registration of the disputed trademark weakened the distinctiveness of the cited trademark and damaged the legality of the well-known trademark. interests, the trademark in dispute will not be registered. Case 4 Well-known trademark protection for internationally renowned brands (Article 13 of the Trademark Law) Represented Abbott Laboratories in an administrative dispute over the trademark objection review of "Abbott YAPEI" against the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board. The typical significance of this case is to protect internationally renowned trademarks through the legal system of well-known trademarks. In a typical case of a well-known brand, when neither the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board nor the first-instance court granted protection to a well-known trademark, the second-instance court adopted the attorney’s opinion and determined that the “Abbott” trademark was well-known on dairy products and other commodities, and the disputed trademark The registration application for Class 24 "Towels" and other commodities has the subjective intention of copying and imitating Abbott's well-known trademarks, objectively taking advantage of the market reputation of the well-known trademarks, and harming the interests of Abbott. The first-instance judgment and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board's ruling were ultimately revoked, and the judgment was The “Abbott” trademark is protected across categories. Case 5: The transaction relationship of buying and selling goods is a contract, business transaction or other relationship as stipulated in Article 15, Paragraph 2 of the Trademark Law (Article 15 of the Trademark Law). Represented UMC Company in suing the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board for the administrative invalidation of the "UMC" trademark. Typical Significance of the Dispute Case This case involves the identification of “other agency relationships” in Article 15, Paragraph 2 of the Trademark Law. The preemptive registration of the principal's trademark by a subsidiary company of an agent who has business dealings with the principal is a typical case of "concealing an illegal purpose in a legal form". Such behavior should of course be restricted by the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 15 Or determine "malicious collusion". The court of second instance held that Dimai Company and UMC Company had a transaction relationship of buying and selling goods before the application date of the trademark in dispute. Therefore, it can be determined that Dimai Company and UMC Company formed a contract, business transaction or transaction as stipulated in Paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Trademark Law. other relationships, thereby correcting the erroneous determination of the court of first instance and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board.

Case 6: Similarity of trademark components does not mean similarity of trademarks (Article 30 of the Trademark Law) Represented Beijing Fantasy Zongheng Network Technology Co., Ltd. against the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board in the “Panda Reading and Pictures” trademark rejection review administrative dispute case. Typical significance: This case is a trademark case Typical cases of trademark similarity determination when the constituent elements are similar. The judgment pointed out that the actual value of a trademark lies in distinguishing the source of goods, rather than allowing the trademark owner to simply monopolize a specific identifier. The cited trademark cannot monopolize panda materials and resources in trademark design because it contains "panda" text or graphics, thereby blocking the use or registration of other trademarks that contain panda materials and have certain distinctions. It was ultimately determined that the applied trademark and the cited trademark did not constitute similar trademarks. Trademark civil case case 7 Prior use of a trademark does not constitute trademark infringement. Agent China National Building Materials Technology and Equipment Corporation and Sinoma International Trading (Beijing) Co., Ltd. sued Cao Limin to confirm non-infringement of trademark rights. Typical significance of this case is a typical case to confirm non-infringement of trademark rights. The case is also the first case accepted by the Zhongguancun Court of Haidian District People’s Court to confirm non-infringement of trademark rights. The judgment pointed out that if others have already used a trademark that is identical or similar to the registered trademark and has certain influence on the same goods or similar goods before the trademark registrant, the owner of the exclusive right to the registered trademark has no right to prohibit the user from continuing to use it within the original scope of use. This trademark confirms that the use of the "Johnson & Johnson" trademark by China National Building Materials Technology and Equipment Corporation and Sinoma International Trading (Beijing) Co., Ltd. on products such as "auto glass film, architectural film" does not constitute trademark infringement. Case 8: Irregular use of a registered trademark constitutes trademark infringement. Agent Sephora (SEPHORA) sued Shanghai Lannuo Cosmetics Co., Ltd. for trademark infringement disputes. Typical significance: This case is a typical case of illegal use of a registered trademark constituting trademark infringement. Shanghai Minhang District will The case was publicly pronounced as a typical case of judicial protection of intellectual property rights. The judgment pointed out that the exclusive right of a registered trademark is limited to the approved registered trademark and the goods approved for use. When the defendant used the above logo, it did not use it according to the approved and registered "Lano Sephora" trademark style, but adopted the " "Lano" and "Sephoran" are arranged separately, and the font of the word "Sephoran" is obviously larger. Its purpose is to highlight the word "Simeilan", weaken the word "Lano", and then cling to the plaintiff's " The good goodwill enjoyed by the "Sephora" trademark constitutes trademark infringement. Case 9: The infringer repeatedly registered the right holder's trademark and aggravated the statutory compensation. Represented Hubei Shihua Brewing Co., Ltd. v. Hubei Shengguang Liquor Co., Ltd. in a trademark infringement dispute case. The typical significance of this case is that the infringer repeatedly registered maliciously. The right holder’s trademark shall be taken into consideration to determine the amount of statutory compensation. The judgment pointed out that the "Bawangzui" trademark involved in the case has gained high popularity in the country through long-term use and publicity. When the defendant should have known that the trademark "Bawangzui" had been approved for registration and use by the plaintiff, it successively applied for registration of trademarks such as "Bazhongzui", "China Bawangzui" and "Shengxi Bawangzui" on similar goods, and on many occasions Even though it was rejected by the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, it still applied for registration repeatedly, and continued to promote and sell liquor with the "Bawangzui" logo on the grounds of the "Notice of Acceptance of Trademark Registration Application" it received. Its infringement The defendant's subjective fault was obvious, and the infringement lasted for a long time, which caused great damage to the reputation and market value of the plaintiff's "Bawangzui" trademark. The defendant was ordered to compensate the plaintiff for economic losses and reasonable expenses of 1 million yuan. Case 10: Trademark confirmation: The trademark is not similar and does not equal the actual trademark use. No infringement. Represented Makeup Company (MAKE UP FOR EVER) against Guangzhou Weimeixiu Cosmetics Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou Laiqian Cosmetics Co., Ltd. for trademark infringement and unfair competition. The Typical Significance of the Dispute Case The typical significance of this case is that the determination that the trademarks are not similar made by the National Trademark Office and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board in trademark confirmation cases does not automatically become a defense reason for the defendant’s non-infringement in trademark infringement cases. Whether it constitutes trademark infringement should be determined by the defendant’s actual Compare the trademark involved in the case with the registered trademark for which the plaintiff claims rights.

Based on what has been said above, there are too many stories about trademark squatting, and now we must be inspired by it. When selling any product, as long as it is your own, you must register it first and then sell it. Only in this way can we better prevent others from snatching away our trademarks and causing great losses to our own interests.