On the one hand, the women's clothing brand _OCHIRLY_, which has a history of nearly 20 years, and on the other hand, th
On the one hand, the women's clothing brand "OCHIRLY", which has a history of nearly 20 years, and on the other hand, the two companies that have no intersection with the "rookie" in the glasses industry, which have only been established for a few years, have launched a trademark ownership dispute for 3 years because of a trademark registered for use on glasses and other goods.
?? Recently, the Beijing Higher People's Court made a final judgment rejecting the appeal of Trendy International Investment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Trendy Company") The No. 1777679 "OCHIRLY" trademark (hereinafter referred to as the "Disputed Trademark") registered by Bao Mou, the legal representative of Guangzhou ZOSE Glasses Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "ZOSE Company"), was finally maintained. It is understood that on June 26, 2001, Bao filed an application for registration of the disputed trademark, and on May 28, 2002, it was approved for registration and approved for use in glasses, spectacle frames, spectacle lenses and other Class 9 goods, and then established a wholly-owned company with the business scope of glasses wholesale and retail.
Recommended reading: What material is better for glasses frames? On July 24, 2014, Trendy applied to the Trademark Office for cancellation of the Disputed Trademark on the grounds of non-use for three years, but the Trademark Office rejected the application and refused to cancel the Disputed Trademark. On May 27 of the same year, Trendy applied to the TRAB for review.
The TRAB held that the evidence submitted by Bao could prove that he had effectively used the Disputed Trademark on approved goods such as glasses and spectacle frames within the specified period, and accordingly decided to maintain the Disputed Trademark. Dissatisfied, Trendy then filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, and the court rejected Trendy's claim in the first instance.
After trial, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that, considering the evidence submitted by Bao as a whole, it could prove that he had used the disputed trademark in the sense of China's trademark law on approved goods such as glasses within the specified period. Trendy was dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment and appealed to the Beijing Higher People's Court. The Beijing Higher People's Court pointed out after trial that China's Trademark Law stipulates that if a registered trademark ceases to be used for three consecutive years, the Trademark Office shall order it to correct or revoke its registered trademark within a time limit, and the purpose of this provision is to encourage trademark owners to actively put their registered trademarks into use and give full play to the role of trademarks in the market.
?? In this case, ZOSE's use of the Disputed Trademark can be regarded as Bao's use of the Disputed Trademark, and the evidence submitted by Bao is an important part of the chain of evidence for the use of the trademark, and combined with other evidence, it can be used to supplement the intention of Bao to actually use the Disputed Trademark. Accordingly, it was proved that it had used the disputed trademark in the sense of China's Trademark Law on approved goods such as glasses during the designated period.
?? With regard to Trendy's claim that Bao had applied for the registration of a large number of trademarks similar to others' well-known brands and trademarks, violated the principle of good faith and did not have a true intention to use, the Beijing Higher People's Court held that the case was mainly to examine the evidence of trademark use submitted by Bao, and whether Bao's behavior violated other provisions of China's Trademark Law was not within the scope of the trial of the case.
At the same time, the Beijing Higher People's Court pointed out that the TRAB's decision and ruling were made separately based on different facts and reasons and the application of law, and there was no conflict between them and there was no legal basis for Trendy's request to suspend the trial of the case. Myopia spectacle frames.