There are obvious differences in visual effects between the disputed trademark and the applicant's trademark. If the disputed trademark and the applicant's trademark are placed in different places, the relevant public will observe that they are completely different. Even if they are compared together, they are fundamentally different. No matter from the whole of the disputed trademark and the applicant's two trademarks, or from their main parts, they are obviously different, and the general attention of the relevant public can not confuse them. Therefore, the respondent believes that the disputed trademark is neither the same nor similar to the applicant's trademark.

3. The commodity category of the disputed trademark is 0607 approximate group; Its commodity category is "metal screws, metal rivets, metal nuts, key pins, metal bolts and washers". The above commodities are standard parts required by machinery manufacturing, household appliances, daily necessities and other manufacturing industries. The categories of goods used by the applicant's trademark are 060 1 and 0602 similar groups, and their categories are "steel pipes, unwrought or semi-forged steels, steel precision castings and machine parts (blanks)". Commodities belong to the raw materials of general processing enterprises, that is, such commodities need to be supplied to production enterprises such as the respondent, and general enterprises need further processing after purchasing the applicant's products; In other words, the products produced by the applicant belong to the raw materials needed by the respondent, and the users or sales channels of the two types of goods (products) are completely different. In a word, the commodities produced by the respondent and the applicant are neither the same commodity nor similar commodities. The products (commodities) produced by the respondent and the applicant are completely different in functions, uses, production departments and sales channels; It is impossible to connect the two.

To sum up, the defendant's trademark logo is independently designed and has unique creativity; In terms of popularity, the disputed trademark is neither the same nor similar to the applicant's trademark; It is particularly important to emphasize that the sales channels of products (commodities) produced by the respondent and the applicant are completely different from those of customers. Therefore, the respondent believes that the disputed trademark has obvious characteristics and identifiability, and it is impossible for the disputed trademark to confuse the relevant public (that is, users and consumers) and confuse the market, thus infringing on the applicant's rights and interests.

Second, the disputed trademark has a high reputation.

1. The disputed trademark has been used and registered for a long time. The defendant was founded in 1978, and it has been 30 years since. Starting with 1995? The respondent began to use the disputed trademark and filed an application for registration of the disputed trademark with the State Trademark Office on September 20, 2000. After strict examination by the State Trademark Office, the registration was approved on 2001kloc-0/654381October 4. The disputed trademark has actually been used for thirteen years, and it has been approved for registration for more than five years.

2. The disputed trademark has produced certain influence and high popularity in the industry. The respondent has been mainly engaged in the processing, manufacturing and sales of stainless steel fasteners since its establishment. Stainless steel nuts, bolts and screws have passed the quality management system certification of China Quality Certification Center (ISO900 1:2000: 2000 international quality system certification). Respondents always put product quality management in an important position in all work, and regard it as the top priority of enterprises. The respondent is now a member of China Fastener Association and China Machinery Basic Parts Association, and has won many awards. Respondent: At present, the enterprise covers an area of 1.26 million square meters, with more than 400 sets of various equipment and a one-stop production line. In 2006, the output value was more than 80 million yuan, and the profits and taxes were more than 8 million yuan. The respondents have fixed assets of more than 20 million yuan and more than 500 employees, including 42 middle and senior technicians and 96 junior technicians. The enterprise has excellent production equipment, strong technical force, complete detection means and reliable product quality. It can be said that the comprehensive strength such as economic strength and technical strength is far ahead in the national defense of the same industry in China; The products produced by the company sell well in all provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions in China, and now 98% of the products are exported to Japan, Europe, the United States, Singapore, Malaysia, the United Arab Emirates and other countries and regions. The respondent's factory has a considerable scale at present, and its product market share is%. The above data can show that the respondent is an excellent enterprise with strong strength and management, rather than a profiteer who tries to "scratch the ball" by imitating and copying the applicant's trademark.

The above-mentioned large amount of basic work done by the respondent has improved the influence and popularity of the disputed trademark, and it also shows from a deeper level that the respondent has no intention to take the "shuttle bus" of the applicant's trademark, and it is even more impossible to get the "light" of the applicant's trademark.

3. The defendant invested a huge sum of money in marketing promotion for the disputed trademark.

After using the disputed trademark, the respondent began to carry out extensive marketing and publicity work, and it needs to spend a lot of money to publicize and promote the disputed trademark every year. The main media are: participated in exhibitions held in Beijing, Shanghai and other places and industries in 2000. Made a product brochure, made a website and so on. In a lot of advertising and marketing work, the respondents always focus on disputed trademarks, and also do some basic work for the respondents to strive for well-known trademarks in China. Now the respondents are trying to declare Jiangsu and famous trademarks in Jiangsu.

Three, the applicant's examination of the trademark, there is obvious malice.

The respondent believes that a large number of facts and evidence are sufficient to prove that the applicant's registered trademark cancellation application number 1665538 is obviously malicious, disturbing the trademark registration management, and the evidential materials used and the facts stated are obviously false, mainly as follows:

1, THE applicant said: "As early as 1996 1, the applicant submitted the trademark" The "and 1043254 on the sixth category of registered trademarks to the State Trademark Office, including screws and nuts, but the necessary 0607 similar goods were mistakenly deleted in the trademark correction procedure. THE applicant did not discover this loophole in time, so that the trademark "The" and the registered trademark No 1043254 could not be effectively protected for a long time on the similar goods of 0607. Only recently did THE applicant declare the famous trademark of Jiaxing to the local industrial and commercial department, and found that the trademark "The" and the registered trademark number were missing. 1043254 is registering. At the same time, in the trademark search, the applicant found that the respondent had pre-registered the registered trademarkNo. 1043254 on the goods of similar group 0607. " The defendant believes that the above statement is obviously fabricated. The reasons are as follows: First, the applicant did not provide relevant materials to prove the time when he corrected the trademark registration application number. 1043254, at present, the information, evidence and materials provided by the applicant cannot prove that the applicant has corrected the registered trademark number1043254; Second, according to the "China Trademark Network" (website: /trde/servlet? Search = FL _ REG & ampRegNO = 1043254 & amp； I ...) According to the records, the number of the Trademark Registration Certificate that the applicant applied for reissue is. June 23, 2004 1043254, and received the certificate on February 30, 2004. On February 6, 2005, the applicant somehow applied for a new trademark registration certificate with the number. 1043254, and got the license again on June 9, 2005. The applicant applied for the renewal of the Trademark Registration Certificate and Trademark Registration CertificateNo. 10 twice. 1043254, which proves that the applicant claimed that the above-mentioned omission statement was false and was a lie fabricated by the applicant only when he declared the famous trademark of Jiaxing in August 2005. It is difficult for the applicant to explain why no omissions were found in the two applications for replacement.

2.1The Trademark Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) revised on February 22, 1993 and the Detailed Rules for the Implementation of the Trademark Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) approved by the State Council on April 23, 1995 have long failed to stipulate that "an applicant applying for trademark registration shall be approved by the local administrative department for industry and commerce before being reported to the State Trademark Office for approval". The applicant provided the trademark registration application report submitted by the applicant to Jiaxing Administration for Industry and Commerce in 2009 1 month 1996+09, requesting the approval of the administrative department for industry and commerce; At the same time, Jiaxing Administration for Industry and Commerce approved the explanation or proof that the applicant applied for trademark registration in 20 14 1 month 19 196 (Volume P0 13). The respondent believes that the applicant's provision of this evidence violates the common sense provisions of the Trademark Law, which no longer exists. At least, the defense never thought that this was a false certificate fabricated by the applicant. At THE same time, the applicant provided evidence. The only thing to prove is that as early as 1996, when the applicant applied for the registration of the trademark "The", the sixth category of "stainless steel standard parts" was taken as the application content and submitted to the State Trademark Office for approval. Isn't this a little too self-abased? The applicant made a low-level mistake here. Please pay enough attention to this,

3. The applicant has provided some trademarks that the applicant has not registered in other countries and regions. These documents (P 14-32) were written in different countries and regions, and the authenticity of their contents cannot be determined. First, these so-called trademarks are neither the applicant's nor the applicant's; Second, these documents have not been translated into Chinese; Third, it has not been certified or notarized by the embassy of China in relevant countries. According to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Rules, these documents cannot be used as evidence for trademark review and adjudication.

Based on the above reasons, it can be considered that the applicant's cancellation of the registered trademarkNo. 1665538 of the respondent is obviously malicious. The applicant has violated the basic business principles of honesty and credit, harmed the legitimate rights and interests of the respondent and disturbed the state's administration of trademarks, so the applicant's request for reexamination should be rejected.

Four, the applicant's trademark is just an ordinary trademark, no visibility.

1On June 28th, 997, the State Trademark Office approved the applicant's trademark registration (No.1043254). The respondent believes that the above-mentioned trademark of the applicant at that time was only an ordinary registered trademark and did not have any popularity. It can be said that the applicant's trademark has no influence in the industry so far, let alone a well-known trademark or a well-known trademark. At the same time, the applicant believes that its registered trademark is a well-known trademark and has not provided any supporting materials. As for whether the applicant's trademark is well-known now, the respondent thinks it is not important. It is important that the applicant should provide evidence to prove that the applicant's trademark is well-known in China or the same industry in China when the respondent applies for trademark registration. 20 September 2000 1665538. The respondent believes that if a trademark was just an ordinary trademark when the respondent applied for trademark registration, but now it has become bigger and stronger, then it is unfair to prevent others from legally using it.

5. The cancellation of the registered trademark 1665538 will damage the legitimate rights and interests of the respondent.

Respondents from 1995 (? ) began to use disputed trademarks; Application for registration was made on September 20th, 2000, and the disputed trademark was approved for registration on October 4th, 2006. It has been five years since the disputed trademark was approved for registration.

According to Article 41 of the Trademark Law, "within five years from the date of registration of a trademark, the trademark owner or interested party may request the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to make a ruling to cancel the registered trademark." The purpose of making this provision by law is to enable trademark owners and interested parties to claim their rights in time, so that the rights of trademark owners are in a stable state. The applicant stated in the application for trademark reexamination that the applicant and the respondent belong to the same industry, and the respondent thought that the applicant should know that the respondent had been using the registered trademarkNo. 1665538. According to the applicant, it is "not only know, but also know very clearly". Only after the disputed trademark has been approved for such a long time can the applicant file an application for trademark dispute. On the contrary, it also proves that the respondent did not maliciously register another person's trademark at all, otherwise the applicant would have filed an application for canceling the registered trademark.

The applicant has not filed a cancellation of the registered trademarkNo. with the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce. 1665538 within five years after the disputed trademark is approved and registered. We can know from the applicant's materials that the applicant and the respondent are actually peers and direct competitors. The applicant said that he didn't know that the respondent had obtained the trademark registration No.2001,which was unconvincing. June 4, 2000 1665538. Objectively speaking, the respondent has a high reputation in the stainless steel standard parts manufacturing industry, and the applicant has long known that the respondent owns the registered trademarkNo. 1665538. According to the above statement of the respondent, it can be seen that the respondent revoked the registered trademark in the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board. 1665538 will be extremely unfair to the respondents.

For reference, these are the things.