primary facts
Applicant: Audi AG.
Defendant: Wu Huisheng
Trademark in dispute: Audi trademark No.53237965438 +0.
(a) Both parties claim that
The applicant's main reason is that Audi is a world-famous luxury car brand, which is widely known to the public. The applicant's international registration number G737443 Audi trademark (hereinafter referred to as the cited trademark) and Audi, graphics and other trademarks constitute well-known trademarks. The registration and use of disputed trademarks will damage the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant as the owner of well-known trademarks. The applicant requests the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to declare the disputed trademark invalid on all designated commodities.
The main reason for the respondent's defense is that the respondent is engaged in the non-metallic door industry, which has been widely used in various ways such as actual production, sales, various advertisements and participation in exhibitions. And Audi wooden doors have won a series of honors, and they have a high reputation in the non-metallic door industry. Before the filing date of the disputed trademark, the applicant's Audi did not constitute a well-known trademark, and the goods such as 12 land transport vehicle (automobile) designated by the applicant's trademark were far from the non-metallic doors and other goods used in the disputed trademark in terms of functions, uses, sales channels, sales places and consumers, and there was no connection. The coexistence of trademarks of both parties will not cause consumers to confuse and mistake the source of goods, so the disputed trademarks should be maintained.
(two) the trial and ruling of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board
After trial, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board held that the focus of this case was whether the disputed trademark violated the second paragraph of Article 13 of the Trademark Law 200/KLOC-0. According to the facts, before the registration of the disputed trademark, the trademark cited by the applicant has been registered and used in motor vehicles, parts and other commodities for many years. The applicant's products continue to be widely sold in many parts of the country. The applicant widely publicizes the cited trademark and its products in various ways, covering most parts of the country. The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board believes that the trademark cited by the applicant, namely the internationally registered Audi trademark G737443, is well known to the relevant public and can be recognized as a well-known trademark used in 12 motor vehicles and parts.
The disputed trademark is the same as the Chinese character of the quoted trademark, but the font is different, which has constituted a copy of the quoted trademark. Although the non-metallic doors and other commodities designated by the disputed trademark are not the same or similar commodities as the motor vehicles and parts and other commodities approved by the cited trademark, in view of the strong distinctiveness and high popularity of the cited trademark, if both trademarks exist in the market, it is enough for the relevant public to think that the disputed trademark is related to the cited trademark to a considerable extent, thus weakening the distinctiveness of the cited trademark, improperly using its market reputation, misleading the public and possibly damaging the legitimate interests of the applicant. The registration of the disputed trademark has violated the second paragraph of Article 13 of the Trademark Law 200/KLOC-0, and the disputed trademark shall be declared invalid.
Key comments
The focus of this case is whether the disputed trademark violates the second paragraph of Article 13 of 200 1 Trademark Law.
200 1 Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Trademark Law is mainly aimed at cross-category protection of registered well-known trademarks. Cross-class protection of well-known trademarks includes not only? Cross-class confusion? (that is, the confusion of commodity sources) also includes dilution, which is enough to make the relevant public think that the disputed trademark has a considerable degree of connection with the well-known trademark, thus weakening the distinctiveness of the well-known trademark. Paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Civil Disputes Concerning the Protection of Well-known Trademarks (Fa Shi [2009] No.3) stipulates:? Enough to make the relevant public think that the sued trademark has a considerable degree of connection with the well-known trademark, which weakens the distinctiveness of the well-known trademark, devalues the market reputation of the well-known trademark, or improperly uses the market reputation of the well-known trademark, which belongs to the circumstances stipulated in the second paragraph of Article 13 of the Trademark Law? Misleading the public, so that the interests of well-known trademark registrants may be harmed? . ? In this clause? Misleading the public? Mainly refers to the theory of Trademark Law? Fade down? .
Specific to this case, first of all, as far as the popularity of the cited trademark is concerned, the evidence submitted by the applicant shows that the cited trademark, namely the internationally registered Audi trademark G737443, is well known to the relevant public and can be recognized as a well-known trademark used in 12 motor vehicles and parts. Secondly, in terms of trademark similarity, both the disputed trademark and the cited trademark are in Chinese? Audi? , the text composition is the same, but the font is different, and the disputed trademark has constituted a copy of the cited trademark. Third, as far as the relevance of goods is concerned, the goods such as non-metallic doors specified by the disputed trademark and the goods such as motor vehicles and parts recognized by the cited trademark do not belong to the same or similar goods. Finally, in terms of misleading the public, in view of the strong distinctiveness and high popularity of the cited trademarks, although the trademarks of both parties are used on non-similar goods, it is still enough to make the relevant public think that there is a considerable degree of connection between the disputed trademarks and the cited trademarks, thus weakening the distinctiveness of the cited trademarks and separating the connection between well-known trademarks and the goods or services they use, thus misleading the public. Based on the above factors, the registration of the disputed trademark has violated the second paragraph of Article 13 of the Trademark Law of 200/KLOC-0.
think
This case embodies the protection of well-known trademarks in trademark examination. With the increasingly fierce market competition, compared with ordinary trademarks, there are more and more attempts to use the reputation of well-known trademarks to edge over and shoulder to shoulder with well-known brands. Because the relevant public has established a strong connection between well-known trademarks and the goods or services they use, if others are allowed to register and use trademarks that are the same as or similar to other kinds of goods or services, this connection will be diluted, that is, the distinctiveness of well-known trademarks will be destroyed, and even the reputation of well-known trademarks will decline. Therefore, in the current practice of trademark examination, it is a breakthrough to apply the second paragraph of Article 13 of 200 1 Trademark Law and the third paragraph of Article 13 of the new Trademark Law to protect registered well-known trademarks from non-similar goods or services. Confused? Standard, use? Misleading the public? The basic element is the anti-dilution theory. Only in this way can we protect the rights and interests of well-known trademark owners and maintain fair competition market order.
For the purpose of trademark protection, copying, imitating or translating other people's registered well-known trademarks on different kinds of goods or services may not necessarily confuse consumers, but improper use of the market reputation of well-known trademarks directly damages the interests of trademark owners, and may weaken the distinctiveness of well-known trademarks and reduce their market reputation. In trademark examination, we must master the legal application requirements for the identification and protection of well-known trademarks, not only to protect the legitimate rights and interests of well-known trademark owners, but also to avoid the abuse of anti-dilution protection and the emergence of well-known trademarks? Symbolic enclosure? Phenomenon.