"Septwolves VS" "satyr" trademark registration disputes now sentenced

"Septwolves" is a well-known brand in the apparel industry. When Fujian Septwolves Ltd. found that the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce had registered the "Septwolves" trademark filed by the Dahuangyuan Brewery Plant in Dayi County, Sichuan Province, Application for revocation, was not approved, then sued the court, October 20, this net was informed from a Beijing Intermediate People's Court, a court made a first instance verdict on the case, seven wolves Group Co., Ltd. requested the withdrawal of the "satyr" trademark registration The administrative decision's claim is dismissed by the court. It is reported that the State Administration for Industry and Commerce Trademark Review and Adjudication Board made "on No. 1408898" satyr "trademark opposition review verdict" ruling: "satyr" trademark be approved for registration. In the petition, Septwolves said that the trademarks of the "Seregar" and the "Septwolves" are all three Chinese characters, and the two Chinese characters are the same. The "color" and "hierie" characters in the middle have a semi-enclosed structure. Is very similar to the two, constitute an approximate trademark; "seven-colored wolf" is not "seven colors of wolves", it can also be understood as "seven colored wolves", "seven colored wolves" The meaning is essentially "seven wolves" and "seven wolves." The products approved by the two trademarks are category 33 "wine (drinks), alcoholic drinks and alcoholic beverages," and the like constitute the same commodity or at least similar commodities. Accordingly, Septwolves believes that the application of the trademark "Serengue" infringes upon the exclusive right to use the trademark of the "Septwolves" of China, the Septwolves and its affiliates, and shall not be approved for registration according to law. In addition, Septwolves also believes that the "Serengue" as a trademark hurt Septwolves company's corporate and brand image, and contrary to the socialist ethos, consumers see the "satyr" trademark, the first reaction is "Satyr", "Satyr" is a derogatory term with the meaning of common sense. Due to the popularity and influence of the "Septwolves" in the market and in the public mind, the meaning of "Septwolves" easily gives the impression of "Septwolves" or "Septwolves." Hurt the plaintiff corporate interests and brand image. Request the court to revoke the decision. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board said: "Seven Septwolves" and registered "Septwolves" trademark in pronunciation, appearance, meaning and so there are significant differences, the coexistence of two trademarks in the market will not lead to confusion and misconduct of consumers, does not constitute an approximate trademark . Septwolves did not mention in the review process the fact that the "Septwolves" trademark was recognized as a well-known trademark by the Trademark Bureau in 2002 and that the time lag was over three years after the application for the trademark "Septwolv" was over and could not prove its trademark In the "satyr" trademark application has been well-known before. The Septwolvika's claim that the court reaffirm its well-known trademark fact should not be supported. As the "satyr" trademark and the plaintiff's "Septwolves" trademark is not approximate, so consumers are not easy to be objectionable trademarks and the plaintiffs linked. At the same time, the meaning of the "satyr" trademark is obviously different from that of "satyr" and therefore its use can not be regarded as contradicting or adversely affecting socialist ethics. In a written reply filed with the court, Dayi County Brewery in Dayi County, Sichuan Province, considered that the trademark "Seven-colored Wolf" and "Septwolves" are not similar marks on the same or similar goods, and both are quite different in pronunciation and meaning . Dayi County, Sichuan Province, a large manor winery on December 11, 1998 to the Trademark Office to apply for the "satyr" trademark, and seven wolves registered in the 25th category of clothing and other goods on the "seven wolves" trademark in 2002 2 On the 8th was identified as a well-known trademark. Its trademark registration in the previous application, seven wolves famous trademarks in the post. "Seven-colored wolf" as a trademark registration and use, there is no contradiction to the socialist ethos issues, there is no adverse effect. Beijing Intermediate People's Court held that Article 28 of the "Trademark Law" stipulates: "Trademarks that have been registered for registration may not be registered or preliminarily validated in conformity with the relevant provisions of this Law or with others in the same commodity or similar commodities The same or similar, by the Trademark Office rejected the application, will not be announced. " In this case, the trademark "Seven-colored Wolf" is the trademark of "Seven-colored Wolf". The cited trademark is a combination of characters and figures consisting of "Septwolves", "SEPTWOLVES" and "Flying Wolf". The opposition trademark and the cited trademark are compared, both in pronunciation, appearance and composition of the elements are different, the overall appearance of the trademark is not approximate, the two used in the same or similar goods will not cause consumers to Misidentification of the source of the product. Therefore, the "seven-color wolf" trademark and the "seven wolves" trademark do not constitute similar trademarks used on the same kind of goods or similar goods. Seven wolves advocated that the "seven-color wolf" trademark and the "seven wolves" trademark are similar trademarks on similar products, lacking in fact and legal basis, and are not supported. At the same time, one Intermediate People's Court also held that although the "Septwolves" trademark registered by the Septwolves was recognized as a well-known trademark by the Trademark Office on February 8, 2002, the said time was later than the date of registration of the trademark "Sejourwolf" (ie, 1998 December 11). Moreover, the "seven-color wolf" trademark and the "seven wolves" trademark did not form an approximate trademark. Therefore, the court also did not support the claim that the "seven wolves" company believed that the "seven-color wolf" trademark violated the exclusive rights of its "seven wolves" registered trademarks of Chinese well-known trademarks. In addition, a hospital also believes that the meaning of the "satyr" trademark, consumers generally understood as "seven colors of wolves", and the meaning of "satyr" will not produce the necessary contact. Therefore, the registration of the trademark "Seven-Colored Wolf" will not have an adverse effect and will not be regarded as contrary to the socialist ethos. Therefore, "Septwolves" think that using the trademark "Seven-colored Wolf" as its trademark harms its corporate image and brand image, it is against the socialist ethics and the lawsuits that have adverse effects. It lacks facts and legal basis and does not support it. In summary, a Intermediate People's Court held that the judgment made by the TRAB was clear that the facts were correct, the applicable law was correct, the procedure was legal and should be maintained. The "seven wolves" of the company's claim for the lack of factual and legal basis, the court will not support. Accordingly, in accordance with Article 54 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China, a court of first instance delivered a verdict of first instance: maintaining the accused Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce on June 4, 2008 Of the "No. 1408898" satyr "trademark opposition review verdict."