Seven Wolves Apply For Cancellation Of Seven Wolf Trademark Registration

"Seven wolves" is a famous brand in the clothing industry. When the Fujian seven wolf Group Co., Ltd. found that the Trademark Review Committee of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce has registered the "seven sex wolf" trademark proposed by the Sichuan Dayi County Manor Wine Brewing Factory, it has applied for cancellation. It has not been approved. It has been sued to the court. In October 20th, this network was informed by the Beijing intermediate hospital. The first court made a first instance judgment on the case. The request made by the seven wolves group limited to cancel the claim of "seven wolf wolf" trademark registration administrative decision was dismissed by the court.

It is reported that the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce has made a ruling on the 1408898th "seven sex wolf" trademark objection review order, ruling that the "seven sex wolf" trademark will be approved and registered.

It is said that the "seven sex wolf" trademark and the "seven wolves" trademark are all three Chinese characters, and the two Chinese characters are the same at the beginning and the end. The middle "color" and the "character" are all semi enclosed structures, which are very similar in appearance and the two constitute an approximate trademark. The seven color wolf is not a "seven color wolf". It can also be understood as "seven colored wolves" and "seven colored wolves". So its meaning is essentially "seven wolves" and "seven wolves". Seven wolves in the complaint

Accordingly, seven wolves consider that the application of the trademark "seven wolf wolf" infringes the "seven wolves" of the seven wolves and related enterprises, and the exclusive right to use the registered trademarks of the well-known trademarks of China.

In addition, the seven wolves also believed that "seven wolves" used trademarks to hurt the company and brand image of the seven wolves companies, and it was contrary to the socialist moral trend. When consumers saw the "seven wolf wolf" trademark, the first reaction was "the wolf wolf", and the "wolf wolf" was a derogatory term with common sense meaning.

Because of the popularity and influence of the "seven wolves" in the market and in the public mind, the meaning of "seven wolves" is easy to produce the impression of "seven wolf wolves" or "seven wolves". This kind of innuendo allusion will seriously hurt the interests and brand image of the plaintiff.

The court is requested to revoke the decision.

The business jury said it did not constitute an approximate trademark.

There are obvious differences in the pronunciation, appearance and meaning between the "seven color wolf" and the first registered "seven wolf" trademark. Two, the coexistence of trademarks in the market does not lead to confusion and misrecognition of consumers, and does not constitute an approximate trademark.

The seven wolves did not mention the fact that the "seven wolf" trademark was recognized as a well-known trademark by the Trademark Office in 2002, and the recognition time was three years later than the "seven wolf wolf" trademark application day. It could not prove that its trademark was well known before the "seven wolf wolf" trademark application date.

The proposal of the seven wolves company requesting the court to reconfirm the fact that its trademark is well known should not be supported.

Because the "seven sex wolf" trademark is not similar to the plaintiff's "seven wolf" trademark, it is not easy for consumers to associate the objection trademark with the plaintiff.

At the same time, the meaning of "seven sex wolf" trademark is obviously different from that of "wolf wolf". Therefore, it can not be considered that its use is contrary to socialist moral trend or has adverse effects.

In the written pleadings submitted to the court by the Sichuan Dayi County Da Zhuang Yuan liquor making general factory, the author believes that the "seven wolf wolf" trademark is not the same trademark as the "seven wolf" trademark, and the two are completely different in pronunciation and meaning.

Sichuan Dayi County Da Zhuang Yuan liquor making general factory on December 11, 1998

The trademark "seven wolf wolf" was applied, and the "seven wolf" trademark registered by seven wolves companies on twenty-fifth categories of clothing was identified in February 8, 2002.

。

Before its application for trademark registration, the company's trademark is well known.

"Seven sex wolf" as trademark registration and use, there is no contradiction with the socialist moral trend, there is no adverse effect.

The court held that the judge had ruled correctly and dismissed the wolf wolf suit.

The trial of the first intermediate people's Court of Beijing held that the twenty-eighth provision of the trademark law stipulates: "the trademark that applies for registration does not conform to the relevant provisions of this law or is identical or similar to the trademark registered or initially approved by others on the same commodity or similar commodity, and the application shall be rejected by the commercial bidding office."

In this case, the "seven color wolf" trademark is "seven wolf wolf" character trademark, and the quoted trademark is a combination of characters and graphics composed of three characters, namely, "seven wolves", "SEPTWOLVES" and "flying wolf figure".

Compared with the quoted trademark, the two party will be different in pronunciation, appearance and constituent elements. It will not be similar to the overall appearance of the trademark. The use of the two party on the same or similar commodity will not cause consumers' misidentification of the source of the product.

Therefore, the "seven sex wolf" trademark and the "seven wolf" trademark do not constitute similar trademarks used on the same commodity or similar commodities.

Seven wolf companies advocate "seven color wolves"

Similar to trademarks of "seven wolves", similar trademarks on commodities are lacking in fact and legal basis, and they are not supported.

At the same time, the first hospital also held that although the trademark "seven wolf" registered by the seven wolves company was recognized as a well-known trademark by the Trademark Office in February 8, 2002, the above time was later than the date of the "seven wolf wolf" trademark registration application (that is, December 11, 1998).

Moreover, the "seven sex wolf" trademark and the "seven wolf" trademark do not constitute an approximate trademark. Therefore, the court has not supported the "seven wolf" company's claim that the "seven wolf wolf" trademark infringed its "seven wolves" China's well-known trademark's exclusive right to register the trademark.

In addition, the first hospital also believes that for the meaning of the "seven color wolf" trademark, consumers generally interpret it as "seven colors of wolves", but not necessarily related to the meaning of "wolf wolf".

Therefore, the registration of the "seven sex wolf" trademark will not have any adverse effects, nor will it be considered to be contrary to the socialist moral trend.

Therefore, the "seven wolves" company believes that the "seven wolves" as a trademark hurt their corporate and brand image, contrary to the socialist moral trend and the adverse effects of litigation claims, lack of facts and legal basis, nor support.

To sum up, the first intermediate people's court held that the judges of the Commercial Commission decided that the facts were clear, the application of the law was correct and the procedures were legal and should be maintained.

The lawsuit of "seven wolves" is lack of fact and legal basis, and the court will not support it.

Accordingly, in accordance with the provisions of item 1 (fifty-fourth) of the administrative procedure law of the People's Republic of China, a court of first instance decided that the ruling on trademark objection of No. 1408898th "seven wolf" shall be maintained by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce in June 4, 2008.