Review Decision about Trademark No. 15884582 for Rejection· Published on 2018-01-11 13:44:32 · 128 read Cases
Applicant: Shanghai Huizhi Culture Communication Co.Ltd
Agent: Shanghai Shouxin IP Agent Ltd
Applicant disagree with No.0000056932 review decision on “”, filed an administrative litigation to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. The court made a verdict of No.(2016) 京73行初4449 to refuse applicant’s demand. Then the applicant can’t accept it and filed an appeal to Higher People's Court of Beijing. And the court made a verdict of No.(2017) 京行终795， and it’s already become effective. We reorganized the collegial panel in accordance with the law.
In verdict, applying mark isn’t similar with cited mark 1 : No.15623913 “”mark. And applicant’s evidence could prove applying mark be used as whole earlier than the apply date of cited mark 2, No.12643036 “”. They have different text combination and literal meaning and will not cause any misunderstanding. Therefore, applying mark is neither similar with cited mark 1 nor cited mark 2.
According to the verdict, we believe, they are not similar marks, no matter in calling, text or connotation.
According to Article 28, of Trademark Law, we decide:
The applying mark is accepted and other procedure will turn over to trademark office.
Have a question about trademarking?
Protect your business name, logo or slogan. Our services include:
- A comprehensive search of all trademark databases
- Preparation and filing of your trademark
- Ongoing protection of your trademark from abuse