[Case Summary]

ZMC Company is the registered trademark owner of Class 5 "ARoS". Due to the needs of brand development, ZMC Company entrusted Quanfang to apply for registration of Class 5 "AROS and Tu" trademark on May 25, 2020. After trial, the Trademark Office considers that the trademark is similar to the "Nanxin, NUCIEN" trademarks already registered by Hunan NXZY Company on similar goods, and partially rejects the registration application of the subject trademark on goods such as "tonics, medical diagnostic preparations, traditional Chinese medicine, pharmaceutical preparations, and nutritional supplements".

After analysis, we believe that there are significant differences in the trademarks of both parties, and ZMC company has already enjoyed trademark rights for the textual part. We recommend active review. The applicant therefore entrusted our office to submit an application for rejection of reexamination to the Trademark Office of the China National Intellectual Property Administration.

[Result of Trial]

After the trial of this case, due to the weaker recognition power of the graphic part of the combined trademark compared to the textual part, the review was ruled successful, and the application for registration of the trademark on Class 5 reviewed goods was preliminarily approved.

[Case Analysis]

In this case, the applied trademark consists of two parts: the slash graphic on the left and the uniquely designed English "ARoS" on the right, while the cited trademark is composed of a combination of the graphic part and the Chinese and English "Nanxin NUCIEN". The design style and graphic elements of the applied trademark and the cited trademark are significantly different; And the applicant has already registered the "ARoS" trademark in the text, which has obvious differences in meaning and calling from "Nanxin NUCIEN", making it less likely to confuse the relevant public. In summary, according to the principle of overall comparison, there are significant differences between the applied trademark and the cited trademark, and they should not be considered similar. This is also the reason why the re examination of this case was successful.