News Details

About Trademark Coexistence Agreement in China

Date:8/24/2015 02:09 PM
      
         (the cited mark) (the applied mark)  
 
▲ Basic case
The trademark “GRANDIOSE” No.12445892(hereinafter referred to as “the applied mark”) was filed for the application by Rankin perfume Beauty Co. Ltd. (the applicant) on April 18, 2013, the approved goods are cosmetics, cosmetic products in Class 3. Then China Trademark Office(CTO) refused the application for the trademark for the reason that the mark is similar to the trademark “GRANDIOSA” No. 813143 (hereinafter referred to as “the cited mark”) which violates the Article 28 of Chinese Trademark Law(2001). The applicant refused to accept the above decision of Trademark Office and filed application for the review with Trademark Review and Adjudication Board(TRAB) on May 8, 2014.
 
▲ Decision
During the revew examination, the applicant forwarded with TRAB the “trademark coexistence agreement”. After trial, TRAB considered that the applied mark is similar to the cited mark in terms of their alphabet compositions and their pronunciations, thus the applied mark and the cited mark are similar trademarks. The designated goods of the applied mark as cosmetics, cosmetic products is identical with /similar to those of the cited mark. It will be likely to cause confusion or mislead to the public about the sources of goods to use the applied mark and the cited mark on the same kinds of goods or similar goods. Therefore, TRAB disapproved the "trademark coexistence agreement"  by the two parties.  In conclusion, the applied mark and the cited mark are similar trademarks according to Article 33 of Chinese Trademark Law, so the application for trademark registration on the review goods is rejected.
 
▲ Typical significance 
This case mentions whether the similar trademarks could be registered or not according to Article 30 of Trademark Law in the review of the refused trademark case, and whether the "trademark coexistence agreement" could be approved by TRAB.  Trademark right is a private right,  and TRAB fully respects the right of free use by the trademark owner. On the other hands, as the protection of the interests of consumers is also one of the legislative purpose for the Trademark Law, if two trademarks coexistence is likely to cause confusion or mislead to the consumers, TRAB disapproves the "trademark coexistence agreement".

TypeInfo: Industry News

Keywords for the information:

HomeAbout usNewsTrademarkPatentCopyrightTranslationRecruitmentLawDownloadContact

Copyright 2014 © Lexgoal  All Right Reserved.

Beijing ICP No. 06055384 Power by 300.cn

LEXGOAL IP LAW OFFICE

Address: No.908,9th Floor,HuaPu International Plaza, No.19 Chaoyangmenwai,Avenue Chaoyang District,Beijing 100020 China

Tel: +86 010-6833 4456 Fax: +86 010-6833 1863

error