|
TRANFAN TRADEMARK&PATENT OFFICE |
Tranfan Law Office
CHINA HANGZHOU
Address: Room 906, Huawei Building, Building No.1, Sky Wing Business Center, No. 133, Hongtai Road, Shangcheng District, Hangzhou , Zhejiang , 310000, CHINA.
Phone: +86-571-85809900
E-mail: trademark@zjbls.com
WhatsApp/Wechat: +8613136186297
--------------------------------------------------
CHINA NINGBO
Address: Room 1703, 17th Floor, Ningbo Yanxiang Center,No. 1299 Ningchuan Road, Yinzhou District, Ningbo, 315042, CHINA.
Phone: +86-574-89085588
E-mail:tm@zjbls.com
WhatsApp/Wechat: +8613136186297
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Successful Invalidation Case of the “SIGG” Trademark |
|
|
[Case Summary]
SIGG SWITZERLAND BOTTLES AG, with a history dating back to 1908, is a Swiss manufacturing company with over a hundred years of history. Its products include drinking water bottles (cups) (made of materials such as aluminum, stainless steel, plastic, glass, etc.) and related accessories. Under its name "SIGG", after long-term use and extensive promotion, it has gained a certain level of popularity and influence in the industry and among the relevant public, and has a strong regional sales network in Europe, especially in German speaking countries. On September 9th, 2020, IGG Singapore Limited Private Trading Company filed an application for invalidation of trademark number 29219576 "SIGG". Our team attaches great importance to this case and actively assists Swiss company SIGG Kettle Limited in defending their rights and interests.

[Result of Trial]
After the trial of this case, the Trademark Office believes that the goods such as "lighting fixtures and devices, electric cookware" approved for use in the disputed trademark and the goods such as "computer game software, network communication equipment" approved for use in the two cited trademarks do not belong to similar goods, and are not likely to cause consumers to mistake the source of the goods. They do not constitute similar trademarks on the same or similar goods. There is a clear difference between the disputed trademark and the cited trademark, and the evidence submitted by the applicant is insufficient to prove that the cited trademark has been widely known to the relevant public. In the situation stipulated in Article 44 (1) of the Trademark Law, the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence, lacks factual and legal basis, and cannot be established.
In summary, the Trademark Office has ruled that the applicant's grounds for invalidation are not valid, and the disputed trademark is upheld.



|
|