Application for registration "trickle down" was prosecuted by the business jury (Figure).


Application for registration

Original title: application for registration "trickle down" was refuted to prosecute business judges.

The news of the Legal Evening News (reporter Zhou Yu) was rejected for the registration of a "dripping car". Beijing didi Wireless Technology Development Co., Ltd. was reexamined by the Trademark Review Committee of the State Administration for Industry and commerce. The decision to reject the request for reexamination is made on an approximate basis. It

When the company refused to accept it, the business jury was sent to the court to request the cancellation of the decision. In the afternoon of June 13th, the case was heard in public in the Beijing intellectual property court.

Application for registration of "dripping" trademark refute

Beijing Bedi wireless technology company provides a network intelligent call system through the mobile Internet, which provides services such as taxi, car, express car, car, and driving service.

In March 2015, Didi applied to the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and commerce to register the Trademark No. 16570638th "drop by drop car". The Trademark Office took the trademark of 16503463rd "drop home education" and 16025983rd "drop drop printer" as the quotation mark, and rejected the "drop by car" trademark in some service providers. Registration application.

Business judges: dripping cars and drops of tutor, drip printing constitute an approximation.

Didi refused to accept the partial rejection decision of the Trademark Office and submitted a review to the business jury. The company said that they filed an objection application to the "drop drop print" trademark, while the "drop home" trademark was in the retrial procedure, so the request for the retrial trademark was preliminarily approved in all the applications for the retrial service.

The quotient committee considered that the "commercial information for others" was designated by the trademark "commercial information for others" and "commercial management assistance", "commercial management for others", and "franchise business management" and "import and export agent" approved for use with "drop drop". Services constitute the same or similar services.

At the same time, the significant identification part of the "drop by drop" trademark is the same as the "drops" in the "drop home education", which is similar to the marked "drop drop" of "drop drop print".

Therefore, if the "dripping car" trademark and the two cited trademark are used together, it is easy to confuse and mistaken the relevant public on the source of service in the same or similar service, which has formed the mark of the thirty-first article of the trademark law used in the same or similar service. Therefore, the application of didi company in the review service was rejected.

Didi: "dripping with a car" high visibility and the overall difference in citation marks is obvious.

The company refused to accept the decision and ordered the decision to be revoked by the court. In the afternoon of June 13th, the case was held at the intellectual property court of Beijing.

The company claims that there are obvious differences in the overall visual effect of the application of the trademark and the quoted trademark. There are significant differences in the composition, call mode, trademark meaning and overall effect of "drop by car" and "drop home teaching" and "drop drop printing", and will not cause confusion and misunderstanding of consumers. "Drops of tutor" and "drop drop print" contain Chinese characters "drops", but these brands have coexist on the same or similar services. According to the consistency of the review standards, the application trademark is not similar to the two citation mark, and should be registered.

Secondly, the owner of "drop home education" trademark is Beijing Xue - Si Education Technology Co., Ltd.; "drop drop printing" trademark owner is Shenzhen seven science and Technology Co., Ltd., mainly engaged in civil 3D printing business. There is a big difference between didi and the business areas of the two companies. Consumers are fully capable of differentiating three trademarks according to the area of the three companies, the region and the perception of the service.

Finally, didi and its associated companies are the original makers and earliest users of the trademark "drop by drop", "dripping", "didi" and so on. And through long-term and extensive use and publicity, the "drop by car" trademark has been highly known in China and established a corresponding relationship with the company. Therefore, the coexistence of the trademark and the two cited trademarks will not cause confusion or misunderstanding of the relevant public.

The business jury replied that the defendant decided to find the facts clearly, apply the law correctly, make the procedure legal, and request the court to reject the dripping petition.

In the court, in view of the company already based on its current "drop" and other trademarks on the "drop home education" trademark objection application, the "drop drop print" trademark should be ineffective declaration application, Didi company put forward an application to suspend the trial.

The case was not declared in court.

Editor in responsibility: Zhang Yu


Waonews is a news media from China, with hundreds of translations, rolling updates China News, hoping to get the likes of foreign netizens