May 31, 2010
---------------------
Monday
>>>Welcome visitor, you're not logged in.
Login   Subscribe Now!
Home User Management About Us Chinese
  Bookmark   Download   Print
Search:  serch "Fabao" Window Font Size: Home PageHome PageHome Page
 
No. 4 of the Ten Innovative Intellectual Property Rights Cases Handled by Beijing Courts in 2015: Wang Donghai v. the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry & Commerce
2015年度北京法院知识产权十大创新性案例之四:王东海与国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会商标申请驳回复审行政纠纷上诉案
【法宝引证码】
*尊敬的用户,您好!本篇仅为该案例的英文摘要。北大法宝提供单独的翻译服务,如需整篇翻译,请发邮件至database@chinalawinfo.com,或致电86 (10) 8268-9699进行咨询。
*Dear user, this document contains only a summary of the respective judicial case. To request a full-text translation as an additional service, please contact us at:  + 86 (10) 8268-9699 database@chinalawinfo.com
 
 
   No. 4 of the Ten Innovative Intellectual Property Rights Cases Handled by Beijing Courts in 2015: Wang Donghai v. the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry & Commerce
appeal case concerning administrative dispute over retrial of the rejected trademark application
2015年度北京法院知识产权十大创新性案例之四:王东海与国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会商标申请驳回复审行政纠纷上诉案

  [Key Terms] trademark under application ; reference mark ; public confusion ; similar trademark
[核心术语] 申请商标;引证商标;公众混淆;近似商标

  [Disputed Issues] 1. Due to not having a new meaning and easily leading relevant public to mistake the source of commodities, the trademark under application constitutes similarity to the reference mark
[争议焦点] 1.申请商标与引证商标相比并未形成新的含义而易使相关公众对商品来源产生误认,构成近似商标

  [Case Summary] The party involved fails to provide evidence proving that the popularity of the trademark under application has already distinguished itself from the reference mark. Meanwhile the trademark under application and the reference mark are both sign marks and are identical as these two marks easily cause the general public to mistake the source of commodities when used on such similar commodities as cocktail at the same time and compared with the latter the former does not have a new meaning...
[案例要旨] 当事人未能提交证据证明申请商标具有的知名度已能够区别引证商标。同时申请商标与引证商标均为文字商标申请商标与引证商标相比并未形成新的含义...

The full text is omitted!

 

2015年度北京法院知识产权十大创新性案例之四:王东海与国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会商标申请驳回复审行政纠纷上诉案

 ——“莫言”商标驳回复审行政案
 /北京市高级人民法院
 行政判决书
 (2015)高行(知)终字第1205号
 上诉人(原审原告)王东海
 委托代理人王云飞,北京市惠诚律师事务所律师。
 被上诉人(原审被告)国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会
 法定代表人何训班,主任。
 委托代理人黄会芳。
 上诉人王东海因商标申请驳回复审行政纠纷一案,不服北京知识产权法院(2014)京知行初字第69号行政判决,向本院提出上诉。本院于2015年3月26日受理本案后,依法组成合议庭进行了审理。本案现已审理终结。
 北京知识产权法院认定:第11733425号“莫言”商标(简称申请商标)由王东海于2012年11月13日申请注册,指定使用在第33类鸡尾酒等商品上。第50100080号“莫言醉”商标(简称被异议商标)的申请日为2005年11月18日,核定使用在第33类白酒等商品上。国家工商行政管理总局商标局(简称商标局)驳回申请商标的注册申请,王东海向国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会(简称商标评审委员会)申请复审。商标评审委员会于2014年10月29日作出商评字[2014]第68746号《关于第11733425号“莫言”商标驳回复审决定书》(简称第68746号决定),决定:申请商标予以驳回。王东海不服第68746号决定,依法提起行政诉讼。
 北京知识产权法院认为:申请商标完整包含在引证商标中,且因“醉”使用在酒类商品上有特定含义,两商标共同使用在“鸡尾酒”等类似商品上,易使相关公众产生混淆误认。申请商标的申请注册违反了2014年施行的《中华人民共和国商标法》(简称《商标法》第三十条的规定。
 ......



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 . You can purchase a single article through Online Pay to immediately view and download this document. Should you have any questions, please contact us at:
+86 (10) 8268-9699 or +86 (10) 8266-8266 (ext. 153)
Mobile: +86 133-1157-0712
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 ;您也可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇案例 。如有问题请来电咨询;
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com


     
     
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝www.lawinfochina.com
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code!
 
  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.
 
Home | Products and Services | FAQ | Disclaimer | Chinese | Site Map
©2012 Chinalawinfo Co., Ltd.    database@chinalawinfo.com  Tel: +86 (10) 8268-9699  京ICP证010230-8