The appellant (plaintiff in the original trial) Beijing Weimei Quxiang Catering Management Co., Ltd. is domiciled in Chaoyang District, Beijing. Legal representative Qu Mou, general manager. (Not present in court) The authorized agent is Zhu, a lawyer from Beijing Daan Law Firm. The appellee (defendant in the original trial), the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, is domiciled in Xicheng District, Beijing. Legal representative Zhao, director. The entrusted agent is Wei Mou, an examiner of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce. The appellant, Beijing Weimei Quxiang Catering Management Co., Ltd. (referred to as Weimei Quxiang Company), was dissatisfied with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court's (2017) Jing 73 Xing Chu No. 2359 administrative judgment due to an administrative dispute over the rejection of a trademark application and appealed to this court. After accepting the case on July 5, 2017, this court formed a collegial panel to hear the case in accordance with the law. The case has now been concluded. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court found out after trial: 1. Trademark in dispute 1. Applicant: Weimei Quxiang Company. 2. Application number: 15740333. 3. Application date: November 19, 2014. 4. Mark: 5. Designated services (Category 43, similar groups 4301-4306): Accommodation agencies (hotels, boarding houses); hotels; motels; tourist housing rentals; hotel reservations; nursing homes; day care centers ( Babysitting); animal boarding; cooking equipment rentals; bar service. 2. Other facts On April 23, 2016, the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (referred to as the Trademark Office) issued a "Notice of Trademark Rejection". According to the Third Article of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (referred to as the Trademark Law) Article 10, Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item (8), decided to reject the registration application for the trademark in dispute. On June 7, 2016, Weimei Quxiang Company submitted a reexamination application to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (referred to as the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board). On February 20, 2017, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board issued Shanpingzi [2017] No. 11593 "Decision on Rejection and Review of the Trademark No. 15740333 "Call a Duck and Picture" (referred to as the sued decision), holding that: the disputed trademark "Call a duck" and the picture used as a trademark are not high-quality and can easily have negative social impact. In summary, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board decided in accordance with the provisions of Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item 8 of the Trademark Law: the application for registration of the trademark in dispute shall be rejected. During the litigation process, Weimei Quxiang Company submitted a total of 16 pieces of evidence to this court regarding the use of the disputed trademark in advertising, product sales, and prior judgments. The above evidence is used to prove the use and popularity of the trademark in dispute. It was also found that the (2017) Jingxingzhong No. 395 Judgment was issued on April 12, 2017, confirming that the trademark No. 15739764 "Call a Duck and Picture" is used in the 35th category of "computer database information systematization, compiling information into computers" There will be no adverse impact on services such as "database". The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the trademark in dispute consists of the text "call a duck" and a cartoon duck image. The usual meaning of "duck" is a kind of poultry, but in non-mainstream culture it also means "male sex worker". Generally speaking, mainstream culture and values ??cannot accept the second meaning as a trademark. The trademark in dispute is designated for use in services such as "bar service, accommodation agency (hotel, boarding house)", etc. In particular, the text of the trademark in dispute is composed of a predicate verb to form the phrase "call a duck", which will further strengthen the relevant public's awareness of the second clause. The cognition and association of the two meanings can easily cause adverse effects. The (2017) Jingxing Zhong No. 395 judgment issued by the Beijing Higher People’s Court determined that “calling a duck” has no adverse effects. The conclusion reached in this case is inconsistent with the above judgment because the services designated for the trademark in dispute in this case are different from the services designated for the trademark in the previous judgment. (2017) The services such as “systematization of computer database information and compilation of information into computer databases” specified for the disputed trademark in the Jingxingzhong No. 395 Judgment are not related to the second meaning of “duck” and will not strengthen or Lead the relevant public to associate with its second meaning. However, the service specified for the trademark in dispute in this case is "bar service", etc. During the specific use process, these occasions may lead the relevant public to think of the second meaning of the trademark in dispute, so it is easy to have adverse effects. In accordance with Article 69 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court ruled to reject the claim of Weimei Quxiang Company.

Weimei Quxiang Company was dissatisfied with the original judgment and appealed to this court, requesting to revoke the original judgment and the accused decision. The main reason for the appeal was that the application for registration of the trademark in dispute did not violate the provisions of Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item 8 of the Trademark Law. . The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board shall obey the original judgment. After trial, this court found that the facts found by the original court were clear, and there were files of the trademark in dispute and cited trademarks, the "Notice of Partial Rejection of Trademarks", the sued decision, the application for review of the rejection of trademark registration, the parties' statements, and the information provided by the parties. This court will confirm the supporting evidence in the case, such as evidentiary materials and prior judgments. This Court held that: Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item (8) of the Trademark Law stipulates: "Signs that are harmful to socialist morals or have other adverse effects shall not be used as trademarks." The "adverse effects" referred to in this article are It means that the registration and use of the trademark mark itself is harmful to morals or has a negative impact on the national political, economic, cultural, religious, ethnic and other social public interests and public order. The trademark in dispute consists of the text "Call a duck", duck cartoon graphics and pattern background. The usual meaning of "duck" refers to a kind of poultry. According to the common understanding of the public, other meanings beyond the literal meaning cannot be interpreted from the words "call a duck". The court of first instance held that "call a duck" was not in high style and could not be equated with the general public perception, so the use of the trademark in dispute did not have any adverse impact on the designated services. Therefore, the application for registration of the trademark in dispute did not violate the provisions of Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item (8) of the Trademark Law. To sum up, the original judgment and the accused decision were unclear about the facts, applied the law incorrectly, and should be revoked in accordance with the law. The appeal of Weimei Quxiang Company has factual and legal basis, and this court supports its appeal request. In accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 70, Paragraph 1 of Article 89, Paragraph 2 and Paragraph 3 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows: 1. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court ( 2017) Administrative Judgment No. 2359 of Jing 73 Bank Chu; 2. Cancellation of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Committee of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce [2017] No. 11593 "Decision on Rejection and Review of the Trademark No. 15740333 "Call a Duck and Picture"; 3. The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce made a new decision on the review application submitted by Beijing Weimei Quxiang Catering Management Co., Ltd. for the trademark No. 15740333 "Call a Duck and Picture". The first and second instance case acceptance fees are 100 yuan each, both of which are borne by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (already paid).