Huarun Snow Beer Resistance "Snow Excellent" Trademark Registration Failed: Called Imitation Suspect

It is understood that the disputed trademark is No. 7471482nd "snow excellent" trademark, which was registered by Willy in June 2009. It is designated to be used in thirty-second categories of beer, ginger beer, malt beer and other commodities.

Citation trademark One is No. 3628283rd "snowflake" trademark, and the other is the No. 6932952nd "snow flake" trademark. The two citations were registered by Huarun brewery and approved in February 2005. They were approved for use in 32 categories of beer, malt beer and other commodities.

legal Objection During the period, Huarun beer company applied for objection to the disputed trademark. It believed that the trademark "snowflake", which was first applied for registration, was a well-known trademark, and the objection trademark should not be approved for registration. But the application was not supported.

Subsequently, Huarun beer filed an objection review application with the business jury. In September 2013, the business jury objection reexamination ruled that the disputed trademarks and two quotations trademarks in the call, meaning and so on, there is a difference, does not constitute an approximate trademark, and the use of similar goods, and will not cause confusion for consumers, accordingly ruled that the objection trademark is approved and registered.

Huarun company refused to accept an administrative lawsuit against the court.

It is reported that Huarun Brewery operates nearly 70 breweries in China. Its brand of snow beer and more than 30 regional brands account for 19.8% of China's beer market. According to the statistics released by the National Bureau of statistics, Huarun snowflake beer sold more than 10 million tons in 2011, ranking the first in the national beer industry, and the snowflake brand sales ranked first in the national beer market.

The court held that the evidence submitted by Huarun beer was not enough to prove that its "snowflake" trademark had become a well-known trademark before its application for dissenting trademark. Moreover, the distinction between the dissenting trademark and the "snowflake" trademark in the call and meaning does not constitute a copy, imitation or translation of the "snowflake" trademark. The registration and use of the dissenting trademark will not cause public misunderstanding, and the dissenting trademark and the two quoted trademark do not constitute an approximate trademark. Accordingly, the court made the decision.