After trial, the core issue of this case lies in the registration of litigation requests stipulated in Article 13, paragraph 3 of the Trademark Law. Article 13, paragraph 3, of the Trademark Law stipulates that Chinese trademarks shall not be registered if they are copied, reproduced or translated to deceive the public and cause harm to their rights and interests. Article 14 of the Trademark Law recognizes a trademark, first of all, it is necessary to determine whether the evidence on file can fully prove that it has a wider range of advertisements and advertisements in the licensed products or services, thus improving its brand awareness.

In this case, the business involved in the registered trademark involves training, holding and holding training courses, holding fashion exhibitions, etc. (except advertisements and other materials); E-books and periodicals published online; (Do not download) online e-books; Filming, but not including advertising; Computers playing on the internet; Community activities (leisure or teaching). The basic information provided by station b has nothing to do with judging whether the trademark is well-known or not; It also confirms the popularity, publicity and publicity of bilibili and mobile clients, but it cannot be confirmed that the brand has a high reputation in authorized training and other aspects.

and the bilibili provided by bilibili? Must I brush when I enter the station? Videos, screenshots of bloggers with the highest broadcast volume in bilibili, and operating conditions in bilibili, etc., cannot confirm that the trademark belongs to a well-known trademark in the licensed business. All the evidence on file can't fully prove that the quoted brand has enjoyed a high reputation in terms of the training it has licensed. Therefore, the judgment of well-known trademarks in the Trademark Law is inconsistent with the standards stipulated in Article 14. The defendant's judgment is right, and so is the court.

the plaintiff believes that if the sued trademark does not become stipulated in Article 13, paragraph 3 of the Trademark Law, then the plaintiff's request does not belong to the trademark, so the court should confirm the request. In a word, in the sued judgment, the judgment of the national patent application agency has clear evidence, correct application and proper review process. Finally, the court ruled that the appeal filed by the defendant Shanghai Magic Power Information Technology Company was rejected.