|
|
|
No. 3 of Seven Model Cases Issued by the Supreme People's Court at the Tenth Anniversary of the Amendment and Implementation of the Administrative Procedure Law: Accurately Comprehending the Rules for Determining Trademark Similarity and the Impact of a Prior Trademark on the Approved Registration of a Subsequent Trademark and Effectively Protecting the Lawful Rights of the Prior Trademark — Guangdong Hao[REDACTED] Technology Group Co., Ltd. v. China National Intellectual Property Administration and Foshan Kai[REDACTED] Enterprise Management Consulting Co., Ltd. (Case of Administrative Dispute over a Request for Declaration of Invalidation of Trademark Rights)
|
|
最高人民法院发布7件行政诉讼法修正施行十周年典型案例之三：广东好某科技集团股份有限公司诉国家知识产权局、佛山市凯某企业管理咨询有限公司商标权无效宣告请求行政纠纷案——准确把握商标近似性判断规则及在先商标对在后商标核准注册的影响，有效保护在先注册商标合法权利
|
|
【法宝引证码】
|
- Legal document：
Judgment
- Procedural status：
Retrial
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| No. 3 of Seven Model Cases Issued by the Supreme People's Court at the Tenth Anniversary of the Amendment and Implementation of the Administrative Procedure Law: Accurately Comprehending the Rules for Determining Trademark Similarity and the Impact of a Prior Trademark on the Approved Registration of a Subsequent Trademark and Effectively Protecting the Lawful Rights of the Prior Trademark | | 最高人民法院发布7件行政诉讼法修正施行十周年典型案例之三：广东好某科技集团股份有限公司诉国家知识产权局、佛山市凯某企业管理咨询有限公司商标权无效宣告请求行政纠纷案 |
| — Guangdong Hao[REDACTED] Technology Group Co., Ltd. v. China National Intellectual Property Administration and Foshan Kai[REDACTED] Enterprise Management Consulting Co., Ltd. (Case of Administrative Dispute over a Request for Declaration of Invalidation of Trademark Rights) | | ——准确把握商标近似性判断规则及在先商标对在后商标核准注册的影响，有效保护在先注册商标合法权利 |
| | |
| (1) Basic Facts | | （一）基本案情 |
| Foshan Kai[REDACTED] Enterprise Management Consulting Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Kai[REDACTED] Company") held the prior trademark "Haotaitai" (No. 3563073). On May 23, 2011, Kai[REDACTED] Company applied for registering the disputed trademark graphic, which was later approved for registration on products such as tableware cabinets in Class 20. Guangdong Hao[REDACTED] Technology Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Hao[REDACTED] Company") is the registrant of the prior cited trademark 1 "Haotaitai and graphic" and the cited trademark 3 "Haojia Haotaitai." In particular, the cited trademark 1 is approved for use on products such as clothes racks in Class 21 and the cited trademark 3 is approved for use on products such as furniture in Class 20. The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the former State Administration for Industry and Commerce rendered a ruling that the registration of the disputed trademark was a reasonable extension of Kai[REDACTED] Company's prior trademark rights and did not violate the provisions of subparagraph (3) of Article 13 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China and the disputed trademark and the cited trademark 3 did not constitute similar trademarks used on the same or similar products. Therefore, it ruled to uphold the disputed trademark. Hao[REDACTED] Company was dissatisfied with the ruling and filed an administrative lawsuit, requesting that the ruling on the request for invalidation rendered by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the former State Administration for Industry and Commerce should be revoked. In accordance with the deployment of the central institutional reform, the relevant functions and powers of the Trademark Office and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the former State Administration for Industry and Commerce are now exercised uniformly by the China National Intellectual Property Administration. | | 佛山市凯某企业管理咨询有限公司（以下简称凯某公司）持有在先商标第3563073号“Haotaitai”商标，2011年5月23日，凯某公司申请注册诉争商标图片，后被核准注册在第20类餐具柜等商品上。广东好某科技集团股份有限公司（以下简称好某公司）系在先的引证商标一“好太太及图”、引证商标三“好家好太太”的注册人，引证商标一核定使用在第21类晾衣架等商品上，引证商标三核定使用在第20类家具等商品上。原国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会作出裁定，认为诉争商标的注册为凯某公司在先商标权利的合理延伸，未违反《中华人民共和国商标法》第十三条第三款的规定，诉争商标与引证商标三未构成使用在同一种或类似商品上的近似商标，遂裁定维持诉争商标。好某公司不服，提起行政诉讼，请求撤销原国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会无效宣告请求裁定。根据中央机构改革部署，原国家工商行政管理总局商标局、商标评审委员会的相关职权由国家知识产权局统一行使。 |
| ．．．．．． | | 一审北京知识产权法院2019年11月作出（2019）京73行初1730号判决，驳回好某公司的诉讼请求。二审北京市高级人民法院2020年5月作出（2020）京行终3563号判决，驳回上诉，维持原判。再审最高人民法院2022年6月作出（2022）最高法行再3号判决，撤销一、二审判决和被诉裁定，判令国家知识产权局重新作出裁定。 |
| | ．．．．．． |
Dear visitor,you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases . If you are not a subscriber, please subscribe . Should you have any questions, please contact us at:
+86 (10) 8268-9699 or +86 (10) 8266-8266 (ext. 153)
Mobile: +86 133-1157-0713
Fax: +86 (10) 8266-8268
database@chinalawinfo.com
| |
您好：您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区，如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录，进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息；如您还不是我们 的英文用户，请注册并交纳相应费用成为我们的英文会员 。如有问题请来电咨询；
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content
found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright
owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.
Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations
of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language
versions as the final authority. lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly
or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.
We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve
the quality of our materials.
|
|
| |
|
|