Rainwing agent Shanghai Blue Starbucks trademark dispute with a radius of review of administrative disputes in favor of Final Appeal

The appellant (plaintiff) Starbucks opposition because trademark case review administrative disputes, refuses to accept the Beijing First Intermediate People's Court (2010) Zhongzhi line Chu Zi No. 2108 administrative decision to the Beijing Municipal Higher People's Court of Appeal. Yun Jing Wen agents as third case radius of Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd. Shanghai Blue agent be present at the hearing. Recently, the case has been the end of the trial, the Beijing High Court finds that trial court ruled that third No. 27071 the facts are clear, correctly applies the law, legal procedures, rejected the appeal and upheld the original verdict. The decision is final.
 
Case Review:
No. No. 1,972,651, "Starbucks STARBUCK" trademark (referred to as the opposed trade mark) by the Shanghai Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd. Blue radius (the radius of the company Blue) on October 15, 2011 to apply for registration, specify a category 2 paint, stain, pigments and other goods, after the Republic of China State Administration for Industry and Trademark Office (referred to as the Trademark Office) and a preliminary review to be announced. Within the statutory period, Starbucks and Trademark Office objection to the application. August 1, 2007, the Trademark Office to make (2007), different word trademark No. 02 935 No. "Starbucks" STARBUCK "trademark dispute ruling" (referred to as the first decision No. 02935), ruled that the opposed trade mark registration to be approved. August 29, 2007, Starbucks Corporation to the People's Republic Administration for Industry and Commerce Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) for trademark objection to the application for review. October 19, 2009, Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to make business assessment [2009] No. 27071 No. "On the first, No. 1,972,651," Starbucks STARBUCK review ruling Trademark Opposition "(the ruling No. 27071), based on" PRC Trademark Law " (the "Trademark Law" Article 33, the provisions of Article 34, rule: The objection shall be approved and registered trademarks of Starbucks Corporation against, the Beijing First-level people's court.
 
Beijing First Intermediate People's Court held that the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and the third blue radius of the company for Shanghai Starbucks "Starbucks and STARBUCKS" trademark application for registration of the opposed trade mark constitutes a well-known trademark has not recognized; Starbucks in the administrative phase of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the evidence only to prove their "Starbucks" coffee trademark goods or services in the registration on the situation, and in 2006 the Shanghai Higher People's Court of Shanghai high people three (known) final word No. 32 civil judgments and trademarks Bureau issued identification "STARBUCKS" trademark is well-known trademarks and other evidence, can only prove that "STARBUCKS" trademark in restaurants, cafes and other services on the record by the well-known trademark protection, and can not prove their "STARBUCKS" trademark in the opposed trade mark before applying for registration in the relevant public know the extent, continued use of the time, the scope of the situation, that can not prove their "STARBUCKS, Starbucks' trademark in the opposed trade mark application for registration has still well-known state. In addition, the designated use of the opposed trade mark goods and Starbucks "STARBUCKS, Starbucks' trademark approved the use of goods is completely different, the coexistence of two trademarks does not cause confusion among consumers mistaken.
 
Starbucks refused to accept the trial verdict, the Beijing Higher People's Court of Appeal.
 
High Court hearing and decision:
Beijing High Court in the trial that Starbucks is still not sufficient to identify the evidence presented in the opposed trade mark application has "STARBUCKS, Starbucks 'trademark is still in a well-known state trial court ruled that the third, No. 27071" STARBUCKS, Starbucks' trademark does not constitute well-known trademark is not inappropriate. Starbucks grounds of appeal the lack of factual and legal basis, not support, ruling rejected the appeal and upheld the original verdict.
 
Jing Comments:
The key point is the case whether the appellant in the assessment phase of Starbucks around the facts of the case for a full, detailed evidence. According to relevant laws and regulations, the People's Court judge administrative cases, evidence should be based on the facts of the case. Therefore, to speak with the evidence in this case is very important. "STARBUCKS, Starbucks' trademark has been identified as well-known trademarks of the objective facts, the appellant in terms of a very favorable conditions. In the opposed trademark applications before the date of "dissent before the date of trademark applications," whether the mark is a well-known to be evidence of objective facts. According to relevant laws and regulations as long as the appellant to prove "STARBUCKS, Starbucks' trademark is well-known trademarks in the future, before the date of the opposed trademark applications can still achieve the level of well-known. Of course, it does not mean "STARBUCKS, Starbucks' trademark to the extent known since we will be able to obtain cross-class protection, but at least is a prerequisite for protection.

Cipian article text by the Beijing Run All rights reserved Please indicate the source.