On December 20, the reporter learned from the Beijing Intellectual Property Court that the Court recently publicly pronounced on eight cases of trademark revocation review administrative disputes, and imposed fines on the parties involved in providing false evidence and obstructing the trial of the case by the People’s Court.

The eight cases were the plaintiff Dongguan Jinji Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd. v. the defendant China National Intellectual Property Administration, and the third party Jilin Province Green Forest Environmental Protection Technology Co., Ltd. trademark right revocation review administrative dispute; the plaintiff Zhang XX v. the defendant CNIPA, the third party Tianjin Zhongying Health Food Co., Ltd. trademark right revocation review administrative dispute; the plaintiff Yao v. the defendant CNIPA, the third party Mao X trademark revocation administrative disputes in six cases. In the above-mentioned cases, the third party is the right holder of the trademarks "Green Forest Lodge", "Yuansha" and "Tea Horse Road and Map" respectively.

The judge introduced that the above-mentioned trademarks involved were all filed by others for revocation due to non-use for three consecutive years. After a review, CNIPA made a decision to maintain the registration of the above-mentioned trademarks. The revocation applicant was dissatisfied with the review decision and sued the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.

The Beijing Intellectual Property Court found that the invoice evidence submitted during the review period was inconsistent with the query results of the National Value-Added Tax Invoice Inspection Platform of the State Administration of Taxation. The specific manifestation is that the information such as product name, product brand, seller and taxpayer identification number and actual does not match.

Based on the facts ascertained, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court determined that the above-mentioned evidence was forged and could not prove the use of the trademark involved, and revoked the review decision of CNIPA in accordance with the law. In addition, in view of the perjury in the above eight cases, which seriously hindered the court’s investigation of facts and disrupted the normal litigation order, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court fined Jilin Green Forest Company and Tianjin Zhongying Company each of 10,000 yuan, and fined Mao 30,000 yuan in total.