Administrative Dispute over the Invalidation of the Trademark of "BOLIMO" and "搏力谋"

Heard by: Beijing Intellectual Property Court, Beijing High People's Court

Outcome of Trial: Uphold the ruling of invalidation

Case Facts:

Belimo Holdings, the third party in the lawsuit (invalidation petitioner), is a world-renowned company engaged in the development, production and sales of actuators and control valves. In this case, the plaintiff Belimo (Xiamen) Valve Co., Ltd. applied for the registration of No. 11444613 "搏力谋" and No. 11444427 "BOLIMO" trademarks, which were approved for use on "valves (machine parts)" and other commodities. Belimo entrusted Sanyou to file an invalidation request for the trademarks in dispute. After the trial, the CNIPA determined that the evidence submitted by Belimo could prove that the cited trademark of "BELIMO"  and the Chinese character of "搏力谋" had formed a corresponding relation by using and publicity. The disputed trademark and the cited trademark constituted similar trademarks of similar products for some products. The registration of the disputed trademark constituted the "registration by other improper means" as referred to Article 44 of the Trademark Law, and the disputed trademark should be declared invalid.

Belimo Xiamen Company filed a lawsuit against the ruling of invalidation and claimed that the disputed trademark and the cited trademark did not constitute similar trademarks, and the disputed trademark did not constitute "registration by other improper means" as mentioned in Paragraph 1, Article 44 of the Trademark Law. After the trial, the court of the first instance believed that the facts supporting the ruling over the accused were clear, the law applied was correct, and the proceedings were legally maintained. Belimo Xiamen Company filed an appeal claiming that the third party did not bring up "registration by other improper means" during the invalidation proceedings, and the disputed trademark and the  cited trademark did not constitute similar trademarks.

The court of the second instance held that: during the trademark review and adjudication stage, Belimo Holdings had clearly pointed out that the application for registration of disputed trademark violated Paragraph 1, Article 44 of the 2014 Trademark Law, the review of Trademark Review and Adjudication Board on the grounds for the invalidation request was proper, and there was no situation as prescribed in Article 70 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. In addition, "BELIMO" and "搏力谋" had a high reputation in the approved use of related products. Belimo Valve Company had applied for multiple trademarks that are the same or similar to "BELIMO" and "搏力谋",, which not only damaging the interests of specific subjects but also disrupting the order of trademark registration. The interpretation to "registrationer by other improper means" in Trademark Review and Adjudication Board was in line with the legislative purpose of Paragraph1, Article 44 of the 2014 Trademark Law and the judicial interpretation above-mentioned. Its conclusion was not improper and then confirmed by the court.

Typical Significance:

Although the right owner of the disputed trademark, in this case, has few trademarks applied, he has applied for a number of trademarks that are similar to the trademarks owned by the invalidation petitioner. The CNIPA has comprehensively considered the high reputation of the  cited trademark and the bad faith of owners of the disputed trademark and determined that the application for multiple trademarks similar to the invalidation petitioner's trademark not only harms the interests of specific subjects but also disrupts the order of trademark registration. The court determined that the interpretation of " registration by other improper means" by Trademark Review and Adjudication Board complies with the legislative purpose of Paragraph 1, Article 44 of the 2014 Trademark Law and the provisions of the judicial interpretation of Provisions of The Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases Involving the Granting and Determination of Trademark Right. This case is a reference for the application of the provisions of Paragraph 1, Article 44 of the Trademark Law on "registration by other improper means" for similar cases.