[Case Summary]

In October 2022, the "GRAVIK and Map" trademark (referred to as the application trademark) applied for registration on Class 7 goods by Company A was rejected by the five registered trademarks cited by the Trademark Office, and it was considered that the applied trademark and the cited trademark constituted similar.

After evaluation, the team attorney believes that the application trademark has its prominent recognition of the text part "GRAVIK" and the cited trademark 1 to 5 form a clear difference; There are obvious differences in the graphic part between the applied trademark and the cited trademark, as well as in the overall composition of the trademark, call reading, appearance and visual effect. Therefore, it makes it easy for consumers to distinguish between the applied trademark and the cited trademark from the distinctive text part of the trademark and the call and appearance of the trademark, without causing confusion and misrecognition, and does not constitute a similar trademark.

Therefore, it is recommended that applicant A company review the rejection.

Trademark comparison:

[Verdict]

In October 2023, the State Intellectual Property Office made the following ruling on the rejection of the review case.

Upon review, it was found that the applied trademark can still be distinguished from the cited trademarks as a whole, and does not constitute a similar trademark used on the same or similar goods.

Therefore, it is decided that the application for trademark registration on the reviewed goods shall be preliminarily examined and approved.