In the process of litigation, MACY’S additionally submitted the following evidence materials:

New Evidence 1: Data on products bearing the Disputed Trademarks manufactured by part of Chinese enterprises in 2009 - 2012, which are collected by MACY’S Taiwan Office; among which, the commercial invoices and cargo receipts of part of products processed by factories located in Kunshan, Jiangsu, Qingdao, Shandong and other places bear the logo “MADE IN CHINA” and product pictures of the Disputed Trademark, etc.;

New Evidence 2: A guide page for Chinese customers on the official website of MACY’S, and the printout of records of Chinese consumers' purchase of garments bearing the Disputed Trademark through the official website of MACY’S during the period from the end of 2011 to the beginning of 2015;

New Evidence 3: Web pages displayed in the course of searching the Disputed Trademark on the website www.baidu.com/, and introduction of "Baidu Encyclopedia" on the Disputed Trademark;

New Evidence 4: Web pages displayed in the course of searching the Disputed Trademark on the website www.taobao.com/; and

New Evidence 5: Material objects of garments, design drawings, etc.

According to the application filed by MACY’S, Li Yin Ling Ellen, purchasing manager of MACY’S International (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "MACY’S Hong Kong Company"), resident of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, testifies in court as a witness. The main contents represented by the witness Li Yanling are as follows: I have been working at MACY’S Hong Kong Company since 1992, and familiar with our brand's business; the main business of MACY’S Hong Kong Company is to manufacture products bearing the Disputed Trademark and other brands in cooperation with Chinese manufacturers and sells them through overseas subsidiaries and the chain stores of department stores around. During the period from 2009 to 2012, MACY’S authorized Chinese manufacturers to manufacture women's garments, cashmere products, scarves and other products bearing the Disputed Trademark. Since June 2011, Chinese consumers can buy goods from the official website of MACY’S www.macys.com, and in 2015, MACY’S Hong Kong Company registered with the website www.tmall.com to sell goods.

The above facts are corroborated by the archive of the Disputed Trademark, Decision of Che No.201200639, application for review on revocation of registered trademark, evidence materials submitted by MACY’S to TRAB and the Court, witness testimony, representations of the parties concerned, etc.

The Court holds that:

I. About the application of laws in this Case

The Trademark Law amended on August 30, 2013 took effect on May 1, 2014. Given that the date when the Disputed Trademark involved in this Case was approved to be registered was in the period of the implementation of the Trademark Law 2001, and both the time when the Sued Decision involved in this Case was made and the time when this Case is heard are in the period of the implementation of the Trademark Law 2014, therefore, this Case involves the application of the Trademark Law 2001 and the Trademark Law 2014.

Article 7 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Issues concerning the Jurisdiction over Trademark Cases and Application of Law after the Entry into Force of the Decision on Amending the Trademark Law provides that "For a trademark the registration of which has been approved before the implementation of the decision on amendment to the Trademark Law, where the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board accepts a case concerning the said trademark before the implementation of the decision on amendment to the Trademark Law and makes a review decision or ruling after the implementation of the decision on amendment to the Trademark Law, and where a party concerned brings a administrative litigation, a People’s Court shall adopt the Trademark Law 2014 in examining the relevant procedural problems and adopt the Trademark Law 2001 in examining substantial problems".

Given that the Disputed Trademark involved in this Case is a trademark the registration of which was approved before the implementation of the decision on amendment to the Trademark Law 2014, the time when the application for review involved in this Case is earlier than that of the implementation of the decision on amendment to the Trademark Law 2014, and the time when the Sued Decision was made is later than that of the implementation of the decision on amendment to the Trademark Law 2014, therefore according to the above provisions, the Trademark Law 2014 shall apply to the hearing of the procedural problems involved in this Case and the Trademark Law 2001 shall apply to the hearing of the substantial problems involved in this Case.

Ⅱ. Whether the Disputed Trademark violates the provision of Article 44.4 of the Trademark Law 2001

Article 44.4 of the Trademark Law 2001 provides that where a registered trademark is not used for a period greater than three consecutive years, the Trademark Office shall revoke the registered trademark. "Use of Trademarks" refers to the commercial use of trademarks, including using trademarks on commodities, commodity packaging or containers and commodity transaction documents, or for advertisements, exhibitions and other business activities. The use of trademarks should not only be open, true and legal, but also should be associated with specific commodities and services and must occur in business activities, so that trademarks can distinguish the source of commodities and services. In combination with the allegations, defenses and claims of the parties concerned, the dispute of this Case focuses on whether the Disputed Trademark was lawfully and effectively used on the approved goods during the period from February 6, 2009 to February 5, 2012.