Tel:+86-21-64214188    |    E-mail:bobdog-china@bobdog.com.cn
Copyright © 2018 bobdog.com All rights reserved.              沪ICP备19034123号-1

  • 二维码
 

Trademark Information - Babu Bean Rights Protection, Bab Dog Lost

Release time:
2019/10/11
Page view
[Abstract]:
The two children's wear brands of "Babu Bean" and "Bab Dog" are only one word difference. Who is Li Wei and who is Li Ghost?

The two children's wear brands of "Babu Bean" and "Bab Dog" are only one word difference. Who is Li Wei and who is Li Ghost? Recently, the final judgment of the Beijing Higher People's Court (hereinafter referred to as the Beijing High Court) The answer is to revoke the original trademark review committee's trademark invalidation request ruling, and 9 "Bab Dog" related trademarks should be declared invalid.

During the trial, all the 9 trademarks such as “Bab Dog” were found to be registered under “other improper means”. The court decided that the third party of the original trial was Quanzhou Babudou Children's Products Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Quanzhou). Babu Bean Company) applies for registration of a large number of trademarks that are similar to others with high reputation trademarks, and sales on the Internet, which do not have real intentions of use, should be invalidated. Some experts pointed out that at present, in the judicial policy of authorizing the authorization of trademarks, there are similar cases in which the registration of trademarks is considered malicious. The judgment of this case is a kind of warning to crack down on trademark hoarding behavior, and also suggests that enterprises should not climb the trademarks of other famous trademarks. Reputation, should invest in building their own brands.

One word difference

The appellee (the original plaintiff) was Babudou (China) Children's Products Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Babu Bean China), which was established on March 29, 1995. It mainly produces and sells children's clothing, shoes and other products. . In the course of business, Babu Bean China applied for registration of a number of text or graphic trademarks related to “Babu Bean” on the 25th category of goods.

Through years of publicity and use, the above-mentioned “Babu Bean” graphic or word mark of Babu Bean China has a high reputation. From 2003 to 2011, the trademark No. 1210799 of Babudou China Co., Ltd. was successively recognized as a famous trademark in Shanghai; in 2012, the trademark No. 4604867 was recognized as a famous trademark in Shanghai.

The appellant of the case (the third person in the original trial) was Quanzhou Babudou Company. Fujian Jinjiang Wantaisheng Shoes Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jinjiang Wantaisheng Company) has successively registered 9 pieces of “Bab Dog” graphics or word trademarks such as No. 1633246. Subsequently, the above trademark was transferred to Quanzhou Babudou Company.

Babu Bean China Company believes that the 9 trademarks applied for by Jinjiang Wantaisheng Company violated the “registration by other improper means” as stipulated in the 2001 Trademark Law of China. On May 9, 2017, Babu Bean China Company filed a trademark invalidation request with the original Trademark Review and Adjudication Board. On January 23, 2018, the original Trademark Review and Adjudication Board ruled on the validity of maintaining trademark rights. Subsequently, Babu Bean China Company refused to accept the above ruling and filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.

After hearing the case, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that there are more than 200 applications and registered trademarks under the name of Jinjiang Wantaisheng Company, including “Kaidi Cat”, “Superman Altman”, “Wan Taisheng Spiderman” and “Haro Jidi”. And many other trademarks similar to other trademarks with higher visibility. In addition to applying for the registration of the trademarks of “BABUDOG”, “Babu Bean” or “Bab Dog”, the Quanzhou Babu Bean Company has also applied for the registration of the “New Bailun Legend”, “Haro Katie” and other well-known trademarks. The name of the trademark.

“Quanzhou Babu Dou Co., Ltd. did not provide evidence to prove that the above-mentioned trademark and the case for the registration of the trademark application were justified and whether it was put into actual use. Considering that Jinjiang Wantaisheng Company sold the above-mentioned trademarks on the Internet, it can be determined accordingly. The registration of the disputed trademark is obviously lacking in the true intention of use, and it does not have the legitimacy of the registered trademark. It is a situation that improperly occupies public resources and disturbs the order of trademark registration.” The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the original trademark review committee found the disputed trademark. The registration did not violate the provisions of the Trademark Law, and the conclusion was made. According to this, the first-instance judgment was made, the ruling of the case was revoked, and the original Trademark Review and Adjudication Board was required to make a new ruling.

Final judgment

The original Trademark Review and Adjudication Board refused to accept the judgment of the first instance and appealed to the Beijing High Court. It believed that the application for the disputed trademark invalidation declaration had exceeded the five-year time limit for the registration of the disputed trademark. The evidence in this case was insufficient to prove that the disputed trademark was Jinjiang Wantaisheng Company. And Quanzhou Babudou Company obtained the registration by deception or other improper means, and did not violate the relevant provisions of the Trademark Law.

Quanzhou Babu Bean Company appealed to the Beijing High Court that it has an intention to use the disputed trademark and has used it in a true and lawful manner. There is no illegal act of hoarding a large number of trademarks; the first-instance judgment has found that the facts and applicable laws are wrong. The court is requested to revoke the judgment of the first instance and maintain the ruling of the case.

The Beijing Higher People's Court held that the Babu Bean China Company filed a request for invalidation of trademark rights in accordance with China's 2001 Trademark Law, and was not subject to the five-year deadline. Jinjiang Wantaisheng Company applied for and registered more than 200 trademarks, including “Kelty Cat”, “Valentin Mitchell, Valentin MCHEAL”, “Superman Altman” and “Wantai Sheng” who applied for registration before and after the application date of the disputed trademark in the case. Other trademarks such as "Spiderman", "Hellojiti" and "DENLOPO" are similar to others with strong or high-profile trademarks; in addition, Jinjiang Wantaisheng has sold some of its registered trademarks on the Internet. Subjectively lacking the intention to use it. Therefore, the improper behavior of Jinjiang Wantaisheng Company occupies public resources and disrupts the normal registration order of trademarks. The disputed trademarks belong to the case of “other improper means” in the first paragraph of Article 41 of the Trademark Law of 2001.

During the trial, Quanzhou Babudou Company claimed that it had the intention to use the disputed trademark and conducted real and legal use. The Beijing Higher People’s Court held that, first of all, the examination of whether the disputed trademark was registered under “other improper means” should be judged according to the subjective intention of Jinjiang Wantaisheng, the applicant of the disputed trademark, and its registration behavior; Quanzhou Babu Bean Co., Ltd. also applied for and registered more than 100 trademarks, including several trademarks containing “BABUDOC”, “Babu Bean” or “Bab Dog” texts and graphics, and “New Legend of the Legend”. Buttons such as NBLAND “Haro Katie” and other trademarks with similar reputations, and the evidence submitted by Quanzhou Babudou Company cannot prove that the application and registration of the above trademarks are justified.

Recently, the Beijing Higher People's Court made a final judgment, arguing that the application for registration of a disputed trademark violated the provisions of Article 41 of the 2001 Trademark Law. The first-instance judgment found that the facts were clear, the applicable law was correct, the trial procedure was legal, the appeal was rejected, and the original was Judge. (Reporter Feng Fei)