Trademark Office of State Administration for Industry and Commerce first refused and ruled that the trademark OENE SHOCK TECHNOLOGY and logo with International Registration No.991528 is not approved to register in China. However, our client has successfully got the approval of the protection of this international registration for the trademark through a review examination by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and is able to get its trademark exclusive rights in China.

Brief information about the case:

Our Monegasque client's company filed a registration for the trademark OENE SHOCK TECHNOLOGY and logo in China. However, the Chinese Trademark Office rejected the said trademark application on the ground that it is similar to a prior trademark in South Korea.

Then we represented our client and filed a review application for the trademark refusal before the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board. In the review, we emphasized that the spelling of the cited mark GENEand the wording 揘OENEin our clients mark are different, moreover, our client mark also have the elements of other wordings and the logo. Therefore, the captioned trademarks are not similar with the cited trademarks in their appearances, pronunciations; and meanings. Thus, the obvious differences will not create confusion within the public and the captioned trademark is related to the trade name of the applicant. It has been used for a long time worldwide and made all-round promotion. The distinctiveness and public recognition has been strengthened.

The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board decided that our grounds were tenable and approved the examination of the trademark. Thereby, our Monegasque client has cleared the obstacle of trademark registration in China.

Attorney's comments:

In this case, when extending the international trademark registration in China, the applicant may have a chance to get a refusal due to that there might has been a similar prior trademark applied to registered or registered. It should be noted that the registration in other countries and regions cannot be the main evidence to prove the distinctiveness of the mark during the review. Also, it is advisable to present evidence of the meaning and the use of a mark to show the significant distinctiveness.