[Main point]

A foreign trademark composed of four or more letters, with only a few letters different and no overall meaning or obvious difference in meaning, which may cause confusion among the relevant public about the source of goods or services, shall be judged as a similar trademark. After the first opposition to the trademark in this case was unsuccessful, the rights holder continued to file an invalidation application, and ultimately the trademark was successfully invalidated.

[Case Summary]

The objector, Huixin Import and Export Group Co., Ltd., is a well-established leading import and export enterprise in Zhejiang Province. Its "MODS" luggage is the company's flagship product for exporting and earning foreign exchange. The independent brand "MODS" trademark was established in 1998 and was recognized as a well-known trademark by the judiciary in 2009. It has been awarded numerous awards and honors, including Zhejiang Province Famous Trademark, Zhejiang Province Export Brand, Jiaxing City Famous Trademark, Jiaxing Service Brand, etc., and has gained high recognition and reputation in the industry.

Jinan Niannujiao E-commerce Co., Ltd. has applied for registration of trademark No. 33707949 "MODO" on Class 18 "travel bags, backpacks, suitcases" and other goods. The trademark was first announced on April 20, 2019. The objector raised an objection to the trademark during the announcement period, and the Trademark Office ruled after review that the opposed trademark was allowed to be registered, on the grounds that the opposed trademark did not constitute a similar trademark to the cited trademark. Our company believes that the ruling in the objection stage lacks factual and legal basis, and therefore suggests that the client file an invalidation application after the trademark registration announcement.

The disputed trademark in this case differs from the English trademark of the objector "MODS" by only one character. The first three letters are identical, with only the last letter being different, and there is no difference in font style. The trademark as a whole has no meaning and is similar in letter composition, calling, and other aspects, forming a similar trademark that can easily mislead the public and cause confusion and misidentification among the relevant public, resulting in damage to the objector's prior legal rights and interests.

[Result of Trial]

In November 2021, the China National Intellectual Property Administration made a ruling on the invalidation case, and the disputed trademark was similar to the reference trademark 1-4 in letter composition, call, etc., constituting a similar trademark. The coexistence of disputed trademarks and cited trademarks 1-4 on the same or similar goods can easily lead to confusion and misidentification of the source of the goods by the relevant public. Therefore, disputed trademarks and cited trademarks 1-4 constitute similar trademarks used on the same or similar goods. Therefore, it is decided to declare the disputed trademark invalid.

[Case Analysis]

In this case, the applicant raised an objection to the disputed trademark for the first time and did not achieve the desired result. However, our company and the objector did not give up on this, but continued to file an invalidation declaration afterwards to successfully invalidate the disputed trademark. In practice, when we encounter situations where our first attempt to protect our rights is unsuccessful, we take further measures or other means to safeguard our legitimate rights and interests based on a comprehensive analysis of the actual situation of the case.