[Case Summary]

Our client, Hangzhou Beixing Technology Co., Ltd. (referred to as the applicant), applied for registration of trademark number 53785929 "Shui Menglu SHEMORE" (referred to as the application trademark) on Class 3 cosmetics and other goods in February 2021. The trademark number 29611604 "Shiduoduo SEEMORE" (referred to as the cited trademark one), trademark number 15744257 "Ximo SEEMORE" (referred to as the cited trademark two), and trademark number 16425336 "SEEMORE" (referred to as the cited trademark two) cited earlier by the Trademark Office were rejected.

We believe that the Chinese part of the applied trademark has significant recognition, which forms a clear distinction from the cited trademark. At the same time, there are significant differences between the applied trademark and the cited trademark in terms of text composition, visual appearance, call recognition, meaning, etc., making them easy to distinguish as a whole. The registration and use of the applied trademark will not cause confusion or misidentification among consumers, and the applied trademark and the cited trademark do not constitute similarity. Therefore, it is recommended that the applicant undergo a rejection review and actively strive for their rights.

[Result of Trial]

In December 2021, the Trademark Office made a ruling on the trademark rejection review case, stating that the applied trademark and the cited trademarks one, two, and three in the rejection decision can still be distinguished as a whole, and do not constitute similar trademarks used in the same or similar services. Therefore, it is decided to preliminarily approve the registration application of the trademark on the goods under review.

[Case Analysis]

This case mainly involves the issue of approximate judgment of Chinese English combination trademarks. The overall call, meaning, and appearance of the trademark are clearly distinguishable, and it is not easy for the relevant public to confuse the source of the goods or services, so it is not judged as a similar trademark. The trademark application in this case has a significantly recognizable Chinese part, which allows the trademark to be clearly distinguished from the cited trademark as a whole, without causing consumer misidentification.

Due to the fact that during the examination stage of trademark registration applications, examiners generally adopt the principle of comparing each element separately for approximate judgment, that is, if there is similarity in the English part of the combined trademark, it may be rejected. In the stage of trademark rejection review, the examiner generally considers the overall differences of the trademark, based on whether it is likely to cause confusion to consumers. Therefore, when a combination trademark application is rejected, the judgment should be made based on whether the applied trademark and the cited trademark as a whole constitute similarity. If the trademark has a significantly recognizable part that can be clearly distinguished from the cited trademark, a rejection review should be actively conducted to fight for rights.