The Beijing High Court recently concluded a trademark invalidation dispute between the appellant, Fujian Dehua County Lifei Food Co., Ltd. ("Lifei Food"), and the appellee, CNIPA, and the third party in the original trial, Trademarks Grupo Modelo, S. De R.L. De C.V. ("Modelo"). The court affirmed the lower court's judgement.
| Disputed Mark | Cited Mark 1 | Cited Mark 2 | Cited Mark 3 |
Reg. No. 4210240 |
Reg. No. 1059038 |
Reg. No. 3943293 |
Reg. No. 3628871 |
The issue in this case is whether the Disputed Mark and the Cited Marks constitute similar trademarks used on the same or similar goods, thus violating Article 30 of the 2013 Trademark Law. The court found that the goods approved for use in the Disputed Mark were Class 32 with subclasses 3201-3203. The goods approved for use by each of the Cited Marks were also in the same class and subclasses. The Disputed Mark and the goods approved for use by each of the Cited Marks are either the same kind of goods, or are identical or highly related goods in terms of functions, uses, production departments, sales channels, consumer groups, etc., which constitute as the same or similar goods as stipulated in Article 30 of the 2013 Trademark Law. Lifei Food claimed that the Disputed Mark and the goods approved for use by the Cited Marks do not constitute similar goods, which has no factual or legal basis. In addition, the Disputed Mark is composed of the words "Yincheng Corona in Chinese," and each of the Cited Marks is composed of "Corona in Chinese." The Disputed Mark and the Cited Marks are similar in terms of text composition, calling, and overall recognition effect, etc., and they constitute similar marks. When the Disputed Mark and the Cited Marks are used on the same or similar goods, and when the relevant public pays general attention, it is easy for them to believe that the goods of the two are from the same entity or have a specific connection, which will lead to confusion and misunderstanding. The Disputed Mark and the Cited Marks constitute similar trademarks used on the same or similar goods. The lower court correctly apply Article 30 of the 2013 Trademark Law.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
