Plaintiff Fujian Nanan Yu Hao Footwear Co., Ltd. v. Defendant Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, Yuexiu District, Guangzhou City, a third party Bao Ying Trading trademark revocation of the administrative review of the dispute case, Right&Able recently won the case verdict Judgment: dismiss the plaintiff's claim.

Plaintiff: Nanan City, Fujian Province Yu Hao Footwear Company Limited (hereinafter referred to Yu Hao Footwear)

Defendant: Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (hereinafter referred to as Trademark Review and Adjudication Board)

Third person: Guangzhou Yuexiu District Bao Ying Trading

【Basic facts】

Trademark No. 3374356 Camel Caravan CAMELBARREL was applied for registration on November 19, 2002, designated for use on the 25th category of garments, shoes and other commodities, and was transferred to the plaintiff on August 13, 2012 Nanan Yu Hao Footwear Co., Ltd., August 7, 2014 approved the registration.

The third party applied for a review of the defendant on August 3, 2015 because of the decision of the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Office) for the withdrawal of the trademark for dispute. The plaintiff filed an administrative lawsuit with Beijing Intellectual Property Court within the statutory time due to the review decision made by the defendant.

In the litigation proceedings in this case, the plaintiff submitted the following evidential materials, the qualification certificates of the plaintiff and the authorizations for the use of the trademark, the contract of processing of the plaintiff, the delivery note, the tax payment certificate and the printouts of the physical images of the goods, and other documents on the provision of the registered trademark Evidence Notice "," Sales Agency Contract "," Beijing Wood Plant 30 June 2015 Fire and Wreck Estimates of the Loss of Inventories, "October 30, 2014 Beijing Camel Cannon Sales, Two Inspection Reports As well as the contents of the web search and other cases in which the plaintiff was involved in producing and selling trademark-related evidence of alleged infringement of shoes.

The defendant submits the following evidence: 1. Review the trademark file to prove the trademark application date, trademark designations, the designated use of goods, etc. 2. The third party in the review process submitted a request for review and a copy of the evidence directory Proof that the decision was made against the facts, reasons and requests for review; 3. Evidence submitted by the plaintiff in the revocation proceedings to prove that the decision was made against a full range of facts, reasons and requests.

The court held:

The focus of the dispute in this case lies in whether the evidence presented in the plaintiff proves that the trademark in dispute has made a real and valid commercial use of the trademark in dispute during the designated period.

In this case, the processing contract submitted by the plaintiff could be proved without any other evidence that the finished product was actually marketed or advertised in the market; the delivery note was unidentifiable by the plaintiff unilaterally; the proof of tax payment was all printed matter and the authenticity Difficult to confirm; "sales contract" because there is no valid payment voucher, cannot prove the actual performance; "loss assessment report" is not formed in the specified period; sales, webpage prints and other authenticity cannot be confirmed; "Inspection Report" Trademark display is not a trademark dispute. To sum up, the court held that the plaintiff's evidence provided by the plaintiff cannot prove that the trademark dispute has been validly used commercially for the approved commodity for a specified period of time. It is not improper for the defendant to decide on the relevant determination.

【Court decision】

Dismissed the claims of plaintiff Nanan City, Fujian Province Yu Hao Footwear Co., Ltd.

 

                                                                                Right&Able attorney Wei Changli on behalf of the case


Right&Able successfully represented Qingdao Windoors Doors and Windows Co., Ltd. for the No. 14204412 "cloud WINDOOR and map" trademark invalidation case
The agent or representative register the trademark without authorization

Previous: 

Next: 

Right&Able represented the third party of Guangzhou Yuexiu District Baoying Trade Co., Ltd. succefully against the plaintiff Nanan City, Fujian Province Yu Hao Footwear Co., Ltd., the defendant Trademark Review and Adjudication Board trademark revocation review of administrative disputes

BACK
本网站由阿里云提供云计算及安全服务 Powered by CloudDream