In recent years, with the maturity of domestic market economy and the rapid integration of global economy, trademarks have become the main basis for consumers to distinguish different sources of goods and services, and the number of trademark applications is also increasing.
Driven by economic interests, there are some vicious competition phenomena in the process of trademark application and registration, such as standing next to famous brands and grabbing other people's trademarks. How to unify the judgment scale of trademark authorization confirmation administrative cases has become a major issue for judges.
On April 26th, the judges of the Intellectual Property Court of Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court explained their "weights and measures" in the trial of trademark confirmation cases to reporters in detail after sentencing the widely concerned 10 trademark dispute case.
Weights and measures highlight the protection of public interests
The word "Spring Festival travel rush fever" is no stranger to people all over the country. However, the use of "Spring Festival travel rush's cybersquatting" as a trademark has caused a dispute between individuals and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce.
The name of the person who applied for the "Spring Festival travel rush registered trademark" is Liu Yuzhong, and the scope of his application for registered trademark is goods such as trucks, tractors and forklifts. According to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, "Spring Festival travel rush Peak is a specific transportation phenomenon around the Spring Festival in China. When it is used as a trademark on designated goods, it lacks distinctive features and has no recognition function ",so Liu Yuzhong's application was rejected. Liu Yuzhong refused to accept this and sued the Commercial Appraisal Committee of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce in the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court.
During the trial, the court fully considered whether it is significant to register "Spring Festival travel rush's cybersquatting" as a trademark on designated goods such as trucks, and whether it will have an impact on public interests. Some people think that although "Spring Festival travel rush" refers to a transportation phenomenon, the forklift, crane, truck and other goods specified in the trademark applied by Liu Yu are not used for what we usually call "Spring Festival travel rush" service. Therefore, when the "Spring Festival travel rush cybersquatting" trademark is used on goods such as trucks, the relevant public will not think that these vehicles are engaged in "Spring Festival travel rush cybersquatting", that is to say, the "Spring Festival travel rush cybersquatting" trademark still has remarkable characteristics when used on goods such as trucks. Accordingly, Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court ruled that the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce made a new decision.
The judge of the Intellectual Property Court of Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court analyzed that according to the relevant provisions of Article 10 of China's Trademark Law, signs that are harmful to socialist morality or have other adverse effects shall not be used as trademarks. However, the expression of the relevant legal provisions themselves is more general and abstract, but the content is closely related to the protection of public interests. Therefore, when trying such cases, the court must always take prudent and prudent judicial judgment measures from the perspective of safeguarding public interests, so as to realize the organic unity of legal effect and social effect.
Weights and measures 2 safeguard prior legal rights and interests
The reporter found that in the increasingly fierce market competition, some small enterprises, in order to seize the market quickly, take advantage of the high popularity and huge market appeal of well-known trademarks, and use elements similar to the sound, shape and meaning of well-known trademarks when registering their own brands, resulting in more and more disputes. The well-known trademark case between Century BMW and German BMW is listed here.
It is understood that in 200 1 year, German BMW Automobile Company cooperated with Ports Group, and Ports Group exclusively produced and sold clothes with BMW logo, and then "BMW lifestyle" entered China. In 2004, Century BMW Group was awarded "MBWL and Map" trademarks, which were approved for use in clothing, shoes and hats.
As for the appearance of "MBWL" in China, German BMW Automobile Company thinks that the trademark of Century BMW Group is a deliberate imitation of its own "BMW Lifestyle" series of clothing trademarks, and it is an obvious "free rider" behavior, so it applied to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce for cancellation of registration, which was supported by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board. Century BMW Group took the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to court because it refused to accept the revocation ruling made by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce.
On the morning of April 26th, Century BMW Group ended in failure again. Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court believes that the brand of "MBWL and Pictures" of Century BMW Group is not only similar in overall visual effect to the brand of "BMW Lifestyle" of German BMW Company, but also used in similar goods, which may easily lead to misunderstanding of the source of goods by the relevant public, thus damaging the legitimate rights and interests of German BMW Company and relevant public. Therefore, the judgment upheld the ruling made by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to revoke the disputed trademarks on "shoes, clothes and hats" and maintain them on other commodities such as "ties".
In this regard, the judge believes that in judicial trials, the trial of trademark authorization cases insists on reasonably determining the scope of protection of well-known trademarks, pays attention to earnestly safeguarding the prior legitimate rights and interests of the parties, and resolutely stops the "hitchhiking" behavior of well-known trademarks.
Weights and measures 3 guide fair competition in the market.
When the name Yi Jianlian is mentioned, most people's first reaction is a famous basketball player in China. When the word "Yi Jianlian" is used in sporting goods, many people will inevitably think that this sporting goods is related to the athlete Yi Jianlian. In fact, the company that uses the "Lian" trademark is Yi Jianlian Sporting Goods (China) Co., Ltd., which has nothing to do with Yi Jianlian himself.
In this regard, Lian proposed that the trademark of "Yi Jianlian Yi Jianlian" is the same as his own name, on the one hand, it violated his name right; On the other hand, before applying for the registration of the disputed trademark, I had gained a certain popularity among the relevant public. The behavior of "Yi Jianlian Company" seized Yi Jianlian's opportunity to register his name as a trademark, which was obviously a deliberate cybersquatting behavior.
On June 5438+065438+ 10, 2009, upon the application of Yi Jianlian, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce ruled to revoke the disputed trademark "Jianyilian Yi Jianlian". "Yi Jianlian Company" refused to accept it and filed a lawsuit with Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court.
On April 26th, Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court made a first-instance judgment on this case, arguing that the right of name, as a legal right, should belong to a kind of "prior right". Where an application for registration of a trademark in the name of another person without permission has caused or may cause damage to the name right of another person, the registration shall not be approved or revoked. Yi Jianlian has gained a certain popularity among the relevant public before applying for the disputed trademark. Yi Jianlian Company, as a sporting goods company, registered a controversial trademark with the same name as Yi Jianlian on sports shoes and other commodities without permission, which may easily make the relevant public think that the above-mentioned commodities originated from Yi Jianlian or have some connection with Yi Jianlian, thus damaging the relevant interests that Yi Jianlian may have based on its popularity and infringing Yi Jianlian's name right. Controversial trademarks should be revoked.
The presiding judge told the reporter that as an effective means to maintain market competition order and promote fair competition, trademark authorization cases should emphasize honesty and credit in trademark registration, and stop unfair cybersquatting by regulating trademark registration behaviors that violate honesty and credit.