[Case Summary]

Our client Zhejiang Chaosi Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (referred to as the applicant) applied for registration of the trademark No. 57029599 "SUPOSIK" (referred to as the applied trademark) on Class 25 clothing and other goods in June 2021, which was rejected by the five registered trademarks cited earlier by the Trademark Office, considering that the applied trademark is similar to the cited trademark.

After conducting an overall analysis of the trademark, my agent believes that the significant identifying parts of the applied trademark and the cited trademark are their respective Chinese and English parts, and there is a significant difference between the Chinese and English parts of the applied trademark and the cited trademark, which can form a clear distinction; In addition, there are significant differences in the overall appearance, design style, and call recognition between the applied trademark and the cited trademark. The overall differences between the trademarks are large and easy to distinguish, and 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 March 2022, the Trademark Office made a ruling on the trademark rejection review case, stating that the applied trademark can still be distinguished from the cited trademarks one to five in terms of overall visual effects, and does not constitute a similar trademark. 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 graphic and textual combination trademarks. Although both the applied trademark and the cited trademark have circular or elliptical patterns in their graphic parts, the design and style of the graphic parts differ significantly and can be distinguished. Moreover, the Chinese and English parts of the applied trademark and the cited trademark each have completely different significant identifications, and there are significant differences in the overall structure, design, and appearance of the trademark, making the overall differences of the trademark obvious. The relevant public can easily distinguish them as a whole and do not constitute similar trademarks. Therefore, after the rejection of the trademark application, the decision was made to publish the preliminary examination.

Through the analysis of this case, we can see that even if the graphic elements of the graphic combination trademark are similar, the overall appearance of the trademark can be clearly distinguished without causing confusion and misidentification among consumers, and it does not constitute a similar trademark. When encountering similar situations where the initial review application is rejected, one can protect their own rights through re examination.