Applicants for “Huawei” Trademark Were Supported by Court?
The well-known big brand Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Huawei company) once applied for the registration of Trademark Class 11 named “Huawei” (hereinafter simplified as the disputed trademark) in 2015. The State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) rejected Huawei’s application, for it violated Article 30 of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter simplified as the Trademark Law).
Article 30 of the Trademark Law stipulates that where a trademark, for the registration of which an application is made, that does not conform to the relevant provisions of this Law or that is identical with or similar to the trademark already registered by another person or is given preliminary examination and approval for use on the same kind of goods or similar goods, the trademark office shall reject the application and shall not announce that trademark. That is, before Huawei company registered for the disputed trademark, other people had registered the “Huawei” trademark. Therefore, SIPO rejected Huawei’s trademark application by law.
Huawei expressed its disapproval in response and took the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce to court. Huawei claimed that the disputed trademark had been widely publicized and used with a high reputation, recognized as a well-known trademark, and thus should be widely protected. At the same time, the acts of applicants of the cited trademarks were malicious. Huawei company requested the court to withdraw the disputed decision.
Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the disputed trademark and the cited trademarks constitute similar trademarks used in the same or similar commodities. Up to the end of the trial, each of the cited trademarks is still a valid registered trademark, which constitutes a barrier to the approval of the disputed trademark. At the same time, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is insufficient to prove that the disputed trademark has gained high reputation through its use, or remarkable features that can distinguish itself from the cited trademarks. Whether the cited trademarks are malicious or not is not within the scope of the case review. As long as the cited trademarks are valid, they can serve as obstacles to the registration of the disputed trademark. Thus, the plaintiff’s claim and reasons are not substantially grounded, and the court will not support.
October 21, 2019
Source: China IP
Photo from: 699pic.com