IP News Alerts Articles Cases Links
Our client won its administrative appellate suit for its Jada mark (2010.12)
2010-12-06

 

The Higher People's Court of Beijing recently, with respect to our client's administrative suit represented by our firm, issued the decision in favor of our client, determining to affirm Beijing First Intermediate Court's judgment. Then our client won this administrative appellate suit.

Brief information about the case:

Our client is a famous toys manufacturer in the world. After its registration application for its mark "Jada TOYS & device" was refused by the Trademark Office, the client's review application for this mark was refused again by the Trademark Appeal Board. When the client came to our firm for a solution, we analyzed the case, and suggested the client to file administrative suit and request the court to reverse the refusal decision of the Board. We represented our client to file the administrative suit before Beijing First Intermediate Court. We provided our detailed grounds with evidence to prove that the Board's refusal decision erred in fact finding and application of laws. In the trial we further stated our points with comparing the color pictures for the use state of our client's mark and cited mark. Beijing First Intermediate Court basically accepted our grounds and then determined that "Jada" in our client's mark and "JIADA" in the cited mark have certain differences in configuration of words and pronunciation; the device of our client's mark is obviously distinct from the earth-like device in the cited mark; so the entire configuration style of our client's mark differs from that of the cited mark; so that it is easy for the relevant consumers to distinguish one from the other when facing these two marks, and no confusion or misleading will be caused; and therefore, the refusal decision of the Board that our client's mark and the cited mark constitute similar marks on similar goods is lacking of factual basis and should be reversed. The Board appealed to Beijing Higher Court and requested to reverse Beijing First Intermediate Court's judgment. Beijing Higher Court upon examination then ruled that Beijing Higher Court's judgment is correct and affirmed, and the appeal of the Board is rejected. It took a year for the Court to make its final decision.

Attorney's comments:

With respect to the Board's refusal decision, trademark applicants should collect sufficient evidence and provide detailed grounds and analysis in their review applications before the Trademark Appeal Board, which is important to won in the review application stage. Once losing the review applications, applicants still have opportunities to win by filing their administrative suits if they have sufficient evidence and persuasive grounds.

 

 

<< Back
This website uses cookies to enhance your experience and to help us improve the site. Please see our Privacy Statement for further information. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive these cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.I accept / Cookie Policy