The Uniformity of Review Criteria Should Not Be Neglected on the Grounds of Case Review

Agricultural Cloud Network Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Agricultural Cloud Company) has approved the registration of several "farmers' commune" trademarks, and wants to register the "farmers' commune" trademarks in product packaging, transportation, passenger transport and other services. Unexpectedly, the trademark registration applications have been rejected one after another, and Agricultural Cloud Company has launched its debate over the right to affirm the label.

It is understood that the trademark is registered by Agricultural Cloud Company on December 12, 2016, and is designated to be used in the arrangement of tours, commodity packaging, transportation, package delivery and other 39 types of services. After examination, the Trademark Office of the original State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the former Trademark Office) rejected the application for registration of trademarks in dispute.

Agricultural Farming Cloud Company refused to accept the rejection decision made by the former Trademark Office, and then applied for review to the original Commerce Judge, claiming that the contested trademark is the company's core brand, which has been put into a large amount of use and publicity, forming a stable market order and establishing a close and unique correspondence with Agricultural Farming Cloud Company; in addition, there is a relationship with the contender that when trademarks with similar marks are permitted to be registered, trademarks in dispute shall also be permitted to be registered.

After trial, the original business judge held that the designated use of the contested trademark in the designated service is not easy to be identified by the relevant public as the source of differentiated services, lacking the obvious characteristics of the trademark, and the evidence submitted by Agricultural Farming Cloud Company in the case cannot prove that the contested trademark has been used with significant characteristics. While what other trademarks have been obtained is different from the case, so it cannot be the natural basis for the preliminary approval of the trademark in dispute. Accordingly, on April 20, 2018, the original Commerce Review Committee decided to reject the application for trademark registration.

Agricultural Cloud Company refused, and then filed an administrative lawsuit to Beijing Intellectual Property Court.

On January 22, 2019, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court made a judgment of first instance, revoking the decision of the original Commerce Judge to reject the trademark review, and ordering the former Commerce Judge to make a new decision.

According to the organizational reform and deployment, the relevant responsibilities of the original business evaluation committee shall be exercised by the State Intellectual Property Office. The State Intellectual Property Office subsequently appealed to the Beijing Higher People's Court for refusing to accept the first instance decision.

After trial, the Beijing Higher People's Court rejected the appeal of the State Intellectual Property Office and maintained the first instance judgment.

October 19, 2019

Source: China Intellectual Property News/China Intellectual Property Information Network

Photo from: 699pic.com