Sanyou Client: Frankfurt Exhibition Co., Ltd
Trial organ: Trademark Office of CNIPA
Trial result: The disputed trademark is not registered
Case Facts
Frankfurt Company (hereinafter referred to as the Opponent) filed an opposition application on September 3, 2021, against the trademark "aotomechanika" of the opposed party that had been preliminarily approved for registration and announced. The disputed trademark is designated for use in Class 12 "automotive shock absorbers; automotive wheel hubs; automotive chassis" and other goods.
Hearing process
The trial found that the opposed party had applied for the registration of over 120 trademarks on multiple classes of goods, mainly involving goods of classes 7, 11, and 12 on automotive components. In addition to the disputed trademark, the opposed party also registered the Kia automatic car brand "KIA" from South Korea, the men's clothing brand "Thom Browne" from the United States, and the German precision mechanical and electrical engineering brand "BOSCH", which were all prior-used trademarks by others.
The opposed party had applied for a large number of trademarks that are identical or highly similar to others' brands in different classes, and many trademarks had been rejected by the Trademark Office due to being identical or similar to others' prior trademarks, or had been refused registration in opposition processes and some trademarks had been applied for invalidation by others,
The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of this case also found that the opposed party applied for registrations of a large number of trademarks, with an attempt to engage in unfair competition or seek illegal benefits through the use of others' brands. The opposed party's behavior disrupted the normal order of trademark registration management and undermined the market order of fair competition.
As a natural person, the opposed party's application for registration of trademarks clearly exceeds the normal needs of market entities in terms of quantity and class, and there are a large number of trademarks that are identical to those with strong distinctiveness that are used by others. In this case, there is only one letter difference between the disputed trademark and the original "" used by the opponent. The opposed party failed to provide evidence to prove that the disputed trademark was independently created or to explain the source of its design conception, and did not provide a reasonable d explanation for its extensive plagiarism and imitation of other’s brands. The intention of such registrations is hard to be considered legitimate. In accordance with Article 7, Article 30, and Article 35 of the Trademark Law, the disputed trademark shall not be registered.
Typical significance
This case involves a typical abnormal application. The trademarks registered by the opposed party and its affiliated companies are not all famous brands that are well-known to the Chinese public. Most of them are trademarks or emerging brands that have not yet reached high visibility, and that makes such registration behaviors kind of lurking. However, the registered trademarks applied for by the opposed party are identical or highly similar to many trademarks that others have previously used, and the number is large.
The Trademark Office severely cracked down on malicious trademark registration and hoarding by promptly discovering applicants of consistent bad faith through methods such as referring to trial results of related cases.
