Meibang Methyl and Thiophanate Methyl from Soda Co., Ltd. of Japan had been in litigation for many years over trademark registration, and finally won the case, safeguarding the dignity of the national industry.
In 1978, Japan Soda Co., Ltd. filed an application for registration of a cited trademark with the Trademark Office. It was approved and registered by the Trademark Office on August 15, 1979, and the products used were certified as Class 5 pesticide products. The trademark has been renewed and registered, and the exclusive right is valid until August 14, 2009.
On July 17, 2001, Meibang Pesticide Company applied to the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the People's Republic of China (referred to as the Trademark Office) to register the disputed trademark. On September 28, 2002, the disputed trademark was approved for registration. The trademark registration certificate number is No. 1907272. The registration is valid from September 28, 2002 to September 27, 2012. The approved goods are Category 5 agricultural products. Fungicides and other commodities.
On May 21, 2004, Soda Co., Ltd. filed an application with the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to cancel the disputed trademark. The reason was that the disputed trademark registered by Meibang Pesticide Company was similar to the cited trademark, causing confusion among consumers. Misunderstanding; Meibang Pesticide Company’s registration of the disputed trademark violated the provisions of Article 31 of the Trademark Law and was an unfair registration act that damaged the existing prior rights of others. Soda Co., Ltd. submitted corresponding evidence during the trademark review process, including:
1. 96 questionnaires. It is stated in the questionnaire: In order to further promote the "Thiophanate Methyl" fungicide produced by Japan Soda Co., Ltd., entrusted by Japan Soda Co., Ltd., we are specifically investigating "Thiophanate Methyl" from your organization and individuals. "market conditions. The above-mentioned 96 questionnaires showed that all those surveyed believed that "Thiophanate-methyl" is the abbreviation of "Thiophanate-methyl".
2. Product list of imported pesticides from Harbin Ruixue Agricultural Materials Distribution Department. The directory shows that the Ruixue Agricultural Materials Distribution Department refers to the "Thiophanate Methyl" produced by Caoda Co., Ltd. and packaged by Jiangsu Longdeng Chemical Co., Ltd. as "Caoda Thiophanate Methyl", but the publication time is not shown in the directory.
During the review process, Meibang Pesticide Company also submitted evidence to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, including:
1. Several market survey forms. It is stated in the market survey form: Meibang Pesticide Company has regarded quality as its life for many years and has wholeheartedly served agriculture, rural areas and farmers. In order to better develop marketable products, it has entrusted our office to conduct "first-class support" to various units and individuals. Market research on branded products. The market survey form showed that respondents could distinguish between "thiophanate methyl" and "thiophanate methyl".
2. Written certificates issued by China Pesticide Industry Association, Shandong Pesticide Industry Association, Henan Pesticide Industry Association, and Shaanxi Pesticide Industry Association all believe that "Methyl Thiophanate" and "Thiophanate Methyl" are Different products.
On March 15, 2006, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board made ruling No. [2006] 0801.
During the litigation process of this case, Soda Co., Ltd. still submitted the above two pieces of evidence to this court as evidence, and also submitted three consultation transcripts, notarial certificates and other evidence, but these evidences were not considered during the review stage. None have been submitted to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board.
The above facts are disputed by the trademark registration certificate, citing the trademark registration certificate, [2006] No. 0801 ruling, the questionnaire submitted by Caoda Co., Ltd., the product list of imported pesticides by Ruixue Agricultural Products Distribution Department, Meibang Pesticides Evidence such as the market survey form submitted by the company, written certificates issued by the China Pesticide Industry Association, Shandong Pesticide Industry Association, Henan Pesticide Industry Association, Shaanxi Pesticide Industry Association, and statements from the parties are on file as supporting evidence.
The [2006] No. 0801 ruling made by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board found the facts clearly, applied the law correctly, and the trial procedure was legal, and should be upheld in accordance with the law. None of Soda Co., Ltd.'s grounds of action are tenable, and this court will not support its lawsuit.
In accordance with the provisions of Article 54, Item (1) of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China, this court's judgment is as follows:
Uphold the defendant, the People's Republic of China* **The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the People's Republic of China issued the Commercial Review Zi [2006] No. 0801 "About the No. 1907272 "JIATUO" Trademark Dispute Ruling."