Luoyang Blueprint Trademark Registration OfficeLuoyang Blueprint Trademark Registration Office
CONTACT US
Fax: 0379-8266022
Tel: 0379-8266022
E-MAIL: service@julongkjj.com

Change from the judicial practice was objection for trade mark applicants, Jiangmen, trademark registration

  deaths from applicants without inheritance or logged off and did not register the transfer of enterprises, so that the opposed trademark application for registration of a case of loss of qualification, registration of the opposed trademark is neither necessary, nor with the principle of trademark law on trademarks to be registered, so in this case, by the opposed trademark registration shall not be approved.

No. 4097289 on the merits, "Shilin and" trademark (hereinafter the opposed trademark) by Jiangsu Zhenjiang Shihlin electric limited (hereinafter referred to as petroleum jelly company in Zhenjiang) in June 2004, the State administration for industry and Commerce Trademark Office (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Office) to submit applications for registration, upon preliminary examination and notice, specifies the use of the 6th class cable bridge product.
Shihlin electric machinery company limited (hereinafter referred to as the petroleum jelly company) in April 2000, 1,772,656th "Shihlin electric and Shihlin Electric map" application for registration of a trademark, in May 2002 were approved and registered, approved for use in the 9th class on commodity such as transformer. In addition, in addition to on more than one category of 6th class, Scholastic company has also applied for registration contains "Scholasticism and figure" logo.
November 2009, the Trademark Office appeal Shihlin companies have opposed trademark application made (2009) ISO 19,506th, the trademark "Shilin's" book of trademark ruling, ruled by the opposed trademark registration shall be approved.
Shihlin refuses to accept the company, within the statutory time limit to the State administration for industry and Commerce trademark review and adjudication Board (hereinafter referred to as trab) contested applications for review. The main reason for: the opposed trademark serious copyright infringement of Scholastic company at under the People's Republic of China provisions of trademark law article Nineth, 31st, was opposed trademark registration shall not be approved by law. Zhenjiang Shilin's company as a reseller, unauthorized license, in its own name without authorization Act of malicious cybersquatting, serious violations of the People's Republic of China civil law provisions of the honesty and credit principle, trademark, 15th and the People's Republic of China against unfair competition article and the provisions of the third paragraph, fifth, was opposed trademark law shall be rejected for registration and prohibited from use. Therefore, the Nineth, 28th requests based on trademark law, provisions of the 13th, the 31st, not approved by the opposed trademark registration.
in August 2011, the trab evaluation (2011) 19,369th on No. 4097289 "Scholasticism and" trademark opposition review Award (hereinafter referred to as 19,369th found) as Shihlin all the reasons the company cannot afford to set up, so according to the provisions of trademark law article 33rd, 34th, ruled by the opposed trademark registration shall be approved.
Shilin company appealed against the 19,369th ruled that the administrative proceedings.
decision
the Beijing Municipal first intermediate people's Court in accordance with the People's Republic of China administrative litigation law section 54th (a) the provisions of paragraph, upheld 19,369th ruling.
Shilin company refuses to appeal against the verdict, and during the second trial of the case submitted to the Administration for industry and commerce in Zhenjiang, Jiangsu Province, dated August 28, 2012 business archive query copies of material evidence that petroleum jelly company in Zhenjiang have been signed on October 19, 2010.
due to the existence of the subject of the parties belonging to the people's Court shall be filed with the relevant administrative authorities obtain evidence case, Beijing high people's Court in accordance with the People's Republic of China administrative litigation law of 34th article, and the provisions of the Supreme People's Court on several issues of administrative lawsuit evidence article 22nd of part (b) provisions of the Zhenjiang intermediate people's Court in Zhenjiang, Jiangsu Province, Shilin company commissioned the existence of the subject of investigation. The investigation, Zhenjiang Scholastic company has cancelled, cancellation of registration time for a query that is record time; Zhenjiang Scholastic company has been liquidated, the liquidation of the company has been dissolved, unable to identify their rights and obligations under the main; Zhenjiang Scholasticism was not involved in the liquidation of the company by the opposed trademark related to the disposal of assets.
think of Beijing Municipal higher people's Court of second instance, trademark rights as a civil right, to be exercised by civil law. In this case, persons applying for registration of the opposed trademark Zhenjiang Shihlin company back in October 2010 have been cancelled, the qualifications of civil subject has lost, prior to being written off and transfer of right to apply for a trademark application will be no objection. Under this scenario, trab in August 2011, 19,369th ruling, approved by the opposed trademark registration, lack of factual and legal basis, should be corrected in accordance with law. Trial court failed to identify the relevant facts of Zhenjiang Shihlin companies write off, resulting in improper judgment, they should be identified on the basis of the facts, their judgment to remedy the situation. VAT company's grounds of appeal have no review necessary, second Court of first instance will not be reviewed. To sum up, the Beijing higher people's Court to withdraw the trial judgment and 19,369th order, ask the judge to make a ruling. Comment on

article fourth of trademark law, natural persons, legal persons or other organizations to its production, manufacture, processing, sorting and distribution of merchandise, need to obtain a right to exclusive use of trademarks, shall apply to the trademark office registered trademarks. So in registered application people for death and no inherited or for enterprise cancellation and not handle transfer procedures, to makes was objections trademark of registered application people lost subject qualification of situation Xia, was objections trademark of registered both no necessary, also not meet trademark law on trademark by needed registered of principles, so this species case Xia, was objections trademark should not approved registered, as business judges of ruled has granted its registered of, court is should judgment revoked the ruled and Decree business judges again made ruled.
, in addition to the above objection cancellation or death in the case of applicant for trademark registration, trademark opposition in administrative case review, there are other changes or loss of qualification of applicant for trademark registration, practice has gradually formed a relatively unified approach.
the first is subject because of the opposed trademark assignment changes.
according to the different phases of the opposed trademark transfers, can be divided into two cases, that is reviewed during the transfer of the opposed trademark and the stage of the proceedings by the opposed trademark transfer case.
during the review period were transfer of the opposed trademark, trademarks originally registered by objection no longer have the qualification of administrative litigation, if dissatisfied with trab's decision, should be borne by the assignee of the opposed trademark litigation. And, in practice, judges will be the assignee of the opposed trademark as a respondent, the original registration of the opposed trademark applicant has ceased to be party to an administrative procedure, the original application for registration and the opposed trademark no longer have a stake, which of course no longer have the right to bring proceedings.
transfer of the opposed trademark at the litigation stage, you should have a stake in the outcome of the case of the opposed trademark assignee continues to participate in the proceedings. As to the original applicant of the opposed trademark of status, there is no explicit legal requirement, from the current judicial practice, the Court is directly by the opposed trademark assignee as party, the original applicant is no longer listed as a litigant.
the second case was loss of objection application for trademark registration qualification of the two cases.
is the opposed trademark registered applicants to log off. As in this case, the situation is the same, the opposed trademark is not registered, it will not go into here.
another case for objection application for trademark registration was revoked.
due to revoked enterprise corporate license is administrative organ according to national business administrative regulations on illegal of corporate made of a administrative punishment, corporate was revoked license Hou, should law for liquidation, liquidation program end and handle business cancellation registration Hou, the corporate only attributed to eradication, so, corporate was revoked license Hou to was cancellation registration Qian, the corporate still should considered acquired, can to himself of name for litigation activities. Enterprise business license has been revoked, and have not been deprived of qualification as a legitimate subject of civil, you can still enjoy rights and assumes the obligations under the relevant provisions of the law, but is limited by its eligibility to engaged in related activities, it cannot be simply because the applicant was opposed trademark was revoked, granted that being opposed trademark registration shall not be approved.
However, from the perspective of the current judicial practice, application for registration of the opposed trademark was revoked, there is a practice of the opposed trademark direct no registration if approved by the judge in this case has been of the opposed trademark registration, the judgement revoked the ruling complained against, ordered the judges ruled again.

BACK