The Court In Beijing Knows That The Relevant Documents Of The Trademark Office Are Not Legal.

Today, the intellectual property court of Beijing has made a judgment on the trademark administrative disputes of the plaintiff, Anhui Huayuan medicine Limited by Share Ltd, and the Trademark Office of the defendant, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Office). Trademark registration In the same day, the application for consultation notice is insufficient, and the application of laws and regulations should be revoked, and the Trademark Office shall be ordered to make a decision again.

This case is the first case involving the legality review of normative documents formulated by the state ministries and commissions after the implementation of the new administrative procedure law in May 1st this year. It is also the first case in the country to be directly heard by all members of the trial committee.

Huayuan company said that in January 4, 2013, the company applied to the Trademark Office to register "Huayuan medical" trademark. In January 11th and January 28th of the same year, Jian Yi Wan and Yi Xin Tang also applied to the Trademark Office to apply for the registration of the trademark of the Chinese "Huayuan". Since then, the Trademark Office has issued a notice of application for consultation on the same day of trademark registration. It requires the 3 companies to negotiate on their own, retain one party's application and submit a written agreement, and the Trademark Office will arrange another time to draw lots with a written agreement.

Huayuan company said that the application time of the company was earlier than that of the other two companies, but was rejected by the trademark office. In accordance with the provisions of the fourth article of the notice of the newly added service trademark on the transitional period, the registration application filed on the same or similar items within one month shall be deemed to be the same day. Huayuan company believes that the notice of "new service trademark" violates the provisions of the trademark law, and requests the court to conduct a review of the legality of the notice of the newly added service trademark.

The Trademark Office argues that the provisions of the notice on new service marks formulated by the board are subject to legality, and the provisions of the transitional period are legitimate and issued appropriately. The establishment of the transitional period is regarded as the same day, which restricts and protects the trademark and prevents the trademark used by others from being registered by others. If the standard of trademark registration is released, the same trademark may appear on the market.

The intellectual property court of Beijing considers that trademark The fourth provision of the notice on newly added service trademarks formulated by the board is not lawful for the transition period. The Trademark Bureau accordingly made insufficient evidence for the application for consultation on the same date of registration on the same day.

In September 17th this year, in the Grand Court of intellectual property court of Beijing, deputy director of the Beijing intellectual property court, Vice President Chen Jinchuan and Song Yushui, all seven members of the trial committee jointly heard the case.

After hearing the trial of the intellectual property court of Beijing, the court held that although the trademark office is the legal entity in the meaning of the transitional period stipulated in the notice of the new service trademark, its provisions "from January 1, 2013 to January 31st" are deemed to be citizens, legal persons or other organizations. Rights and obligations The "trademark" has been set up, and the Trademark Office has exceeded its statutory authority.

In addition, the Beijing intellectual property court trial committee also pointed out that the Trademark Bureau formulated the "new service trademark notice" on the transitional period, and the principle of applying the prior principle and maintaining the interests of the former user as a rule to determine the trademark registration in a specified period of time, manifested its pursuit of substantive justice and striving to achieve a better vision of the trademark application order status, to a certain extent, it could protect the interests of the prior user, its motives and purposes were justified, and had certain rationality in the system design. Rationality can not be equivalent or substitute for legality. The real realization of substantive justice must rely on the realization of procedural justice. Otherwise, the stability, certainty and authority of law will be damaged.