Home >

Why Does The Shanghai Baby Shoe Babu Figure Be Revoked?

2010/6/3 11:04:00 56

??? 日本語 Fran?ais English 中文

Jinjiang family

鞋服生產(chǎn)企業(yè)商標(biāo)在2004年被上海巴布豆公司提出撤銷注冊申請。

Recently, the first intermediate people's Court of Beijing accepted the plaintiff's dispute over the trademark dispute of Fujian Jinjiang Wan Tai Sheng shoes and Clothing Co., Ltd., the Trademark Review Committee of the defendant's State Administration for Industry and Commerce and the third person Shanghai Babu children's Articles Co., Ltd.

The plaintiff, Fujian Jinjiang Wan Tai Sheng shoes and Garments Co., Ltd. claims that it is a manufacturer of children's shoes.

Children's wear

The professional manufacturer of sports shoes and clothing was founded in 1993.

The plaintiff filed an application for Trademark Registration No. 1633246th on the 3 day of July 2000 to the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and commerce, which was approved and registered in September 24, 2001, with 25 categories.

But in May 25, 2004, Shanghai

Babu bean

However, the application for cancellation of registration was submitted to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and commerce.

The defendant's trademark review and Adjudication Board made a commentary (2010) No. 03577 on "1633246th graphic trademark disputes ruling", the plaintiff's twenty-fifth class 16332468th figure was revoked.

The plaintiff believes that the applicant is not the owner of the trademark, and the application for revoking the plaintiff's trademark should be rejected if it does not have the right to cancel the trademark.

The evidence provided by the disputed applicant can not prove that the Japanese Xiangyang company has the copyright of the trademark artwork.

Dispute trademark and graphics do not constitute an approximation. The plaintiff's trademark registration can not be recognized as a violation of the prior rights of the contentious applicant.

From the date of application for trademark registration, the plaintiff began to use the 1633246th graphic trademark on the twenty-fifth related products. This trademark has been deeply rooted among the public through the long-term cultivation of the plaintiff, and has a high reputation in the relevant public.

It is reported that the case is about to be heard.