Wanglaoji Descendants’ Trademark Lawsuit against Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Rejected due to Failure to Renew in Time
The founder of “Wanglaoji”, Wang Zebang has a nickname Aji. When he was old, people called him Wang Laoji. Since 1828, during the Daoguang years of Qing dynasty, Wang Zebang has opened “Wanglaoji Herbal Tea Shop”. After Wang’s death, his three sons designed the trademark “True Image of Wang Laoji” to commemorate their father and facilitate his business. On August 1, 1951, Wang Zebang’s great-granddaughter Wang Moudian applied for the registration of No. 7686 graphic trademark “True Image of Wang Laoji” (hereinafter simplified as cited trademark). On January 9, 1958, the owner of the trademark was changed from Wang Moudian to Wanglaoji United Pharmaceutical Factory, with the exclusive right of the trademark to expire at July 31, 1971. After the expiration, Wanglaoji United Pharmaceutical Factory did not renew the trademark registration.
On May 2, 2012, Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as GP Group) applied to the former Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce for registration of the graphic trademark No. 1055371 “True Image of Wang Laoji” (hereinafter referred to as the disputed trademark).
On July 12, 2017, Wang’s three children, Hu Mouhuan, Hu Moumei and Hu Mouye, filed a request for invalid declaration of the disputed trademark with the former Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Review Board). The Trademark Review Board ruled that the disputed trademark should be maintained.
Hu Mouhuan, Hu Moumei and Hu Mouye filed an administrative lawsuit in Beijing Intellectual Property Court against the ruling of the Trademark Review Board. The three plaintiffs claimed to the court that the disputed trademark applied for registration by GP Group and the cited trademark applied by their mother Wang Moudian, “True image of Wang Laoji”, were fully identical. The copying and duplication of the cited trademark by the disputed trademark constitute trademark infringement stipulated by Article 28 of the Trademark Law of 2001 that “a trademark...is identical with or similar to another person’s trademark which has already been registered or given preliminary examination and approval for use on the same kind of commodities or similar commodities”. The disputed trademark should be declared invalid.
On April 29, 2019, Beijing Intellectual Property Court made the first-instance judgment after the hearing and dismissed the claims of the three plaintiffs Hu Mouhuan, Hu Moumei, and Hu Mouye. After the verdict was announced, the three parties did not appeal and the judgment was now in force.
October 12, 2019
Source: The Democracy and Law Times
Photo from: 699pic.com
