The First Instance Judgment of the Administrative Dispute over the Invalidity of the "Beitang" Trademark
Recently, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court heard an administrative dispute between the plaintiff, Laobeitangjia Food Technology Co., Ltd. of Tianjin Development Zone (hereinafter referred to as Laobeitangjia Food Technology Co., Ltd.) and the plaintiff, the "Beitangjia" Trademark Right Invalidation Request of the Trademark Review and Evaluation Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the original. In the first instance, the defendant revoked the defendant's ruling. Previously, the original Trademark Review and Adjudication Board ruled that the "Beitang" trademark can be registered.
Lao Beitang Food Company's "Lao Beitang" trademark (hereinafter referred to as the quoted trademark) filed an application for registration with the Trademark Office of the former State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Office) on April 2, 2002, and was approved to be used in category 30 "condiments, sauces" and other commodities.
The third party in the case, Beitang Seafood Industry Association of Tanggu District of Tianjin City (hereinafter referred to as Beitang Seafood Association), filed an application for registration with the Trademark Office on May 14, 2009. The trademark was approved for registration on August 21, 2012, and was approved for use in the 29th category of "shrimp paste" and other commodities.
After trial, the original Trademark Review and Adjudication Board believe that from the perspective of trademark marks, the contested trademark and the quoted trademark constitute similar trademarks in terms of text composition and calls, and the contested trademark and the quoted trademark constitute similar trademarks. However, the products such as "shrimp sauce" used for trademark verification and "condiment; sauce" used for quotation trademark verification are not classified in the current International Classification of Commodities and Services for Trademark Registration, so they do not belong to similar products. Therefore, the two trademarks do not constitute similar trademarks used in similar products. Lao Beitang Food Company refused the ruling and filed an administrative lawsuit with Beijing Intellectual Property Court, requesting the court to cancel the ruling.
After hearing, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that, on one hand, the contested trademark and the quoted trademark constitute similar trademarks; on the other hand, the "shrimp sauce" commodity and "condiment, condiment" commodity are likely to cause confusion and misunderstanding among the relevant public in terms of functions, uses, production departments and sales channels. Therefore, the contested trademark and the quoted trademark are easy to cause confusion to related public due to the constitution of similar trademarks in similar commodities.
Accordingly, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court decided to support the lawsuit request of Laobeitang Food Company and to revoke the original Trademark Review and Adjudication Board's ruling.
At present, the case has entered the second instance procedure.
September 4, 2019
Source: CNIPA
Photo from: 6199pic.com
