On the one hand, there is the women's clothing brand "Ochirly" with a history of nearly 20 years, and on the other hand, it is a "rookie" in the eyewear industry that has only been established for a few years. On the surface, the two companies have nothing in common, but due to trademark The issue started a three-year trademark ownership dispute. Let’s take a look at the development of the case with Bajie Intellectual Property Trademark Transfer Network:

▲Women’s clothing brand “Ochirly”

It is understood that Trendy applied to the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Office) to cancel the disputed trademark on July 24, 2014, claiming that the disputed trademark had been continuously valid from July 24, 2011 to July 23, 2014. During the three-year period (hereinafter referred to as the designated period), Bao failed to make real, effective and legal public commercial use of the trademark in dispute on approved goods such as glasses.

The "Ou Shili Glasses" was registered by Bao on June 26, 2001, and was approved for registration on May 28, 2002. It was approved for use in category 9 glasses, spectacle frames, spectacle lenses, etc. on the merchandise. After review, the Trademark Office made a decision on April 17, 2015, not to revoke the disputed trademark. On May 27 of the same year, Trendy applied for reexamination to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board).

It is reported that during the trademark review stage, Bao submitted relevant product inspection reports, order contracts, agency processing contracts, transaction details, accounting vouchers, sales invoices, advertising and other materials to prove his The disputed trademark was used within the meaning of my country’s trademark law within the specified period. On January 26, 2016, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board made a reexamination decision (hereinafter referred to as the sued decision), believing that the evidence submitted by Bao could prove that he had effectively used the disputed trademark on approved goods such as glasses and spectacle frames during the specified period. , based on which the disputed trademark was decided to be maintained.

Trendy Company was dissatisfied and subsequently filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court and submitted a printout of the China Trademark Network web page, which showed that Bao had applied for registration of multiple trademarks on Class 9 goods. Ji Company claimed that the evidence submitted by Bao could not prove the use of the disputed trademark. Both parties have to submit relevant materials respectively. In a trademark dispute case, it is very necessary to prepare materials related to trademark litigation. Bajie Intellectual Property reminds enterprises to save trademark usage information and related documents in normal times. If you have other trademark issues, such as trademark sales, trademark transactions, etc., you can choose Zhejiang or call the 24-hour customer service hotline: for consultation! After trial, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that Bao’s “Oushili Glasses” trademark did not constitute trademark infringement, and therefore approved the registration.

As for Trendy's claim that Bao applied to register a large number of trademarks similar to others' Zhibajie intellectual property brands and trademarks, which violated the principle of good faith and had no true intention of use, the Beijing Higher People's Court held that , this case is mainly to review the trademark use evidence submitted by Bao. Whether Bao’s behavior violated other provisions of my country’s trademark law is not the scope of the case. At the same time, the Beijing Higher People's Court pointed out that the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board's decision and ruling were made separately based on different facts, reasons and legal applications, and there was no conflict or impact on each other. Trendy requested to suspend the trial of the case. Lack of legal basis. Therefore, the final judgment of the Beijing Higher People's Court rejected Trendy's appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment.