"Fanta" is a well-known brand of Coca-Cola Company. Because the National Trademark Review and Adjudication Board did not allow the design of "Fanta" beverage bottle to be registered as a three-dimensional trademark, Coca-Cola Company sued the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court. On the morning of December 23, 25, the first-instance judgment was made in Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court.

the court found that the overall design of Fanta beverage bottle is basically the same as that of ordinary bottle, and there is little difference in visual effect, which is not significant. On this basis, the review decision of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board was maintained. Coca-Cola Company claims that the trademark pattern of Fanta beverage bottle applied for registration is a bottle-shaped three-dimensional logo, which is mainly characterized by dense surrounding ribs in the lower half of the bottle body compared with the common general bottle type. Coca-Cola Company believes that the lower part of the bottle body is often the main part of the consumer's visual recognition and the main contact part, so the rib design of this part has a unique effect, which makes it different from the general bottle type. Coca-Cola Company has used this bottle for a long time to hold its Fanta beverage products, which is deeply loved by consumers in China, and has formed a specific association among consumers, which can distinguish it from ordinary bottles. Moreover, the bottle-shaped three-dimensional trademark has been registered in many countries, which fully proves that the trademark is remarkable and should be approved for registration. Request the court to decide to cancel the reexamination decision made by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to reject the application for registration and not to announce the preliminary examination and approval.

However, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board believes that the design of Fanta's beverage bottles is relatively simple, lacking in characteristics, and it is not easy to distinguish them from other beverage bottles, and it cannot produce distinctive features that are different from other ordinary bottles, and the overall lack of distinctiveness. Take the ribbed design emphasized by Coca-Cola Company as an example. Many drinks in the market have already adopted anti-skid design such as ribbed design. The bottles of Coca-Cola Company are not original and do not conform to the provisions of Article 11 of the Trademark Law. In addition, according to the geographical principle of trademark confirmation and protection, the application for trademark registration in other countries can't be the reason why it must be registered in China. Therefore, it was decided to reject the plaintiff's trademark application and not to make a preliminary examination and approval announcement.

Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court held through trial that the Trademark Law stipulates that marks lacking distinctiveness shall not be registered as trademarks. "Fanta" beverage bottle is based on the ordinary bottle type, and the lower part of the bottle body is designed with ribs. Although this design is different from the lower part of the ordinary bottle type, the visual effect brought by this difference is not much different when the overall design of the two bottles is basically the same. The rib on the lower part of Fanta beverage bottle is not enough to change its appearance and shape obviously from that of ordinary bottles, and it is not easy to attract the attention of ordinary consumers. Therefore, the trademark applied for lacks distinctiveness as a whole and does not have the function of distinguishing it from other commodities. On this basis, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board rejected the application for trademark correctly, and the court should maintain it. Based on this, the above-mentioned first-instance judgment was made.

on December 23, 25, the agent of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board did not appear in court, and the court pronounced the sentence by default according to law. The agent of Coca-Cola Company did not make it clear whether to appeal.