[Case Summary]
In June 2022, the trademark "QUANTA and Tu" of Company A (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) (hereinafter referred to as the disputed trademark) was requested for invalidation by Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
Due to the needs of actual business, the respondent has already used the disputed trademark on the main products before the filing date in 2007, and has been continuously used for nearly 15 years, establishing a close corresponding relationship with the respondent. In addition, the disputed trademark is original and differs significantly from the cited trademark of Huawei in the aspects of distinctive identification, meaning, and spatial impression. The products such as "lamp" approved by the disputed trademark are very different from the products such as Category 9 mobile phone approved by Huawei in terms of function, use, and consumer object, and relevant consumers will not be confused or mistaken. Does not constitute a similar trademark. At the same time, the time for the applicant to file an invalidation has exceeded the legal period, which does not meet the situation of "not subject to the five-year time limit to file an invalidation".
Comparison of trademarks:
category
|
Trademark design
|
Approved trademark usage
|
Controversial Trademark
|
|
Lamp, fluorescent tube, electric furnace, heating device
|
Applicant's well-known trademark
|
|
Program-controlled switch
|
Applicant's cited mark2
|
|
Computer peripherals, computer peripherals, computer software (recorded), integrated circuit cards, antennas, transmitters (telecommunications), video phones, mobile phones, optical communication equipment, program-controlled telephone switching equipment, network communication equipment, printed circuits, integrated circuits, integrated circuit blocks
|
Applicant's cited mark3
|
|
Computer peripherals, computer peripherals, computer software (recorded), integrated circuit cards, antennas, transmitters (telecommunications), video phones, mobile phones, optical communication equipment, program-controlled telephone switching equipment, network communication equipment, printed circuits, integrated circuit blocks
|
[Result of Trial]
On July 19, 2023, the State Intellectual Property Office made a ruling on the invalidation case, because the applicant in this case filed the invalidation time has exceeded the legal period, and the disputed trademark does not exist malicious registration or improper means to obtain registration, and has never had adverse effects, so the ruling: the disputed trademark is maintained.
[Case Analysis]
Even if a registered trademark is applied for invalidation by a well-known enterprise, the enterprise can also collect relevant evidence of the actual good faith use of the trademark, and pay attention to whether the applicant has filed within five years from the date of registration of the trademark, even if the other party has a well-known trademark, its scope of protection is not unlimited. Enterprises can defend their legitimate prior rights and interests through a professional team to defend the declaration of invalidation.
|
