Your location:Home > SUCCESSFUL CASE > Trademark
Trademark

Decision on Review of Rejection of Trademark No. 61593017 "Zhongzhou Yuya"

AddTime:2022-09-15 11:15:25  Views:

 Decision on Review of Rejection of Trademark No. 61593017 "Zhongzhou Yuya"

 
       Shang Ping Zi [2022] No. 0000290381
       Applicant: Zhongxian Cunshi Agricultural Development Co., Ltd.
       Attorney: Beijing Shengzhou International Intellectual Property Agency Co., Ltd.
        The applicant refused to accept the rejection of the registration application of the trademark "Zhongzhou Yuya" No. 61593017 (hereinafter referred to as the trademark application), and applied to the Bureau for re-examination. Our bureau has accepted it and the trial has now been concluded.
        The main reasons for the applicant's reexamination: No. 12977102 "Zhongzhou Orange Juice zhongzhouchengzhi and Figure", No. 33796007 "Zhongzhou Online" trademark, No. 38589808 "Zhongzhou Tuzhu" trademark, No. 38589808 No. 40617351 "Zhongzhou Steamed Tofu" trademark, No. 59553725 "Zhongzhou Haoli" trademark, No. 32372944 "Zhongzhou Yujiang" trademark (hereinafter referred to as cited trademarks 1 to 6) in terms of constituent elements, overall appearance and specific meaning, etc. Significantly different,
        Do not constitute similar trademarks on the same or similar services. After publicity and use, the applied trademark has gained a certain reputation, and has established a unique corresponding relationship with the applicant. To sum up, the request is for preliminary examination and approval of the trademark applied for.
        The applicant submitted publicity picture evidence in the reexamination procedure.
         After reexamination, it was found that the applied trademark and cited trademarks 1 to 6 contained the distinctive character "Zhongzhou", which were similar in terms of calling, character composition, visual impression, etc., and constituted similar marks. The reexamination services such as advertisements and employment referrals for the designated use of the trademark and the services designated or approved for use by the cited trademarks 1 to 6 belong to the same or similar services. If the applied trademark and cited trademarks 1 to 6 are used on the same or similar services mentioned above at the same time, it is easy for the relevant public to confuse and misunderstand the source of the service provision. Therefore, the applied trademark and the cited trademarks 1 to 6 have constituted similar trademarks on the same or similar services under Articles 30 and 31 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China. The evidence submitted by the applicant is insufficient to prove that the applied trademark has been actually and effectively used commercially, and the relevant public has been able to distinguish it from the cited trademarks.
In accordance with Articles 30, 31 and 34 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China
Provisions, our bureau decided as follows:
         The application for registration of the trademark applied for on the review service was rejected.
         The applicant who is not satisfied with this decision may file a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of this decision, and submit a copy of the complaint to the court at the same time or within 15 days at the latest. notify the Bureau in writing.
Members of the collegiate panel: Niu Sanmao
Liu Hao
You Hongyan
September 6, 2022
Back To Top