Viewpoint | Legal Analysis and Reflections on the Rejection of Trademark Registration Applications
Published:
2024-03-15
As an important mark in commercial activities, trademark plays an important role in protecting the rights and interests of consumers and maintaining the order of fair market competition. However, trademark registration is not an easy task, and the legal issues involved are numerous and complicated, which need to be handled carefully by the applicant, the examination authority and the judiciary. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the legal issues involved in this case in order to provide a useful reference for the handling of similar cases.
Introduction
As an important mark in commercial activities, trademark plays an important role in protecting the rights and interests of consumers and maintaining the order of fair market competition. However, trademark registration is not an easy task, and the legal issues involved are numerous and complicated, which need to be handled carefully by the applicant, the examination authority and the judiciary. In this case, the applicant was rejected for registration due to the similarity of the trademark and the prior rights. After the first and second trials, the applicant failed to do so. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the legal issues involved in this case in order to provide a useful reference for the handling of similar cases.
Brief description of the case
The State Intellectual Property Office rejected the applicant's application for registration on the grounds that it determined that the applied trademark was similar to the prior right and violated Article 30 of the Trademark Law. If the applicant refuses to accept it, he will file an administrative lawsuit. The court of first instance supported the view of the State Intellectual Property Office. In the second instance procedure, the court of second instance held that the cited trademark had been revoked because it had not been used for three years, and determined that it did not constitute a violation of Article 30 of the Trademark Law, but it also determined that the application for trademark was malicious rush registration, which violated Article 4 of the Trademark Law. Paragraph 1, therefore rejected the applicant's claim and upheld the original judgment. In view of this case, the author believes that the focus issues are: 1. Does the applicant constitute a violation of Articles 30 and 44, and what are the basis and consequences? 2. Can the court directly reject the trademark application at the second instance stage with new reasons and reasons when neither the State Administration of Knowledge nor the first instance has heard the case? 3. Does the court of second instance reject the claim on new grounds and uphold the original judgment conform to the procedural law? Does it deprive the applicant of the right of action?
Analysis of whether the 1. constitutes a violation of Article 30 and Article 44 of the Trademark Law
Application of Article 30 of the (I) Trademark Law and Consequences of Violation
Article 30 of the Trademark Law stipulates: "Where a trademark applied for registration does not comply with the relevant provisions of this Law or is the same as or similar to a trademark that has been registered or preliminarily approved by others on the same or similar goods, the Trademark Office shall reject the application and shall not announce it." In this case, both the State intellectual property Office and the court of first instance held that the trademark application was similar to the prior right, thus violating the provisions of Article 30 of the Trademark Law.
For the judgment of trademark approximation, we should comprehensively consider the overall visual effect, text composition, graphic design and other factors of the trademark, and make a comprehensive judgment in combination with the category of goods or services. If the applied trademark is highly similar to the previous trademark visually, and the category of goods or services pointed to is the same or similar, which may easily lead to confusion or misunderstanding by consumers, it should be regarded as a similar trademark. However, the specific circumstances of the application trademark and the prior trademark are not disclosed in detail in this case, so it is impossible to directly judge whether it constitutes an approximation.
If the application for a trademark does constitute an approximation of the prior trademark, the consequence will be to reject the application for registration and not to publish it. This consequence means that the applicant cannot obtain the exclusive right to use the trademark, cannot use the trademark on related goods or services, and cannot protect his legitimate rights and interests through trademark rights protection.
Application of Article 44 of the (II) Trademark Law and Consequences of Violation
Article 44 of the Trademark Law stipulates: "Where a registered trademark violates the provisions of Articles 10, 11 and 12 of this Law, or the registration is obtained by deception or other improper means, the Trademark Office shall declare the registered trademark invalid; other units or individuals may request the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to declare the registered trademark invalid." In this case, although the court of second instance determined that the trademark application was malicious squatting, it did not directly quote Article 44 of the Trademark Law as the reason for rejecting the application.
Malicious cybersquatting usually refers to the intentional application for registration of a trademark that the applicant knows or should have known about the prior use of another person. If the application for a trademark constitutes a malicious squatting, the consequences may be declared invalid. Once a trademark is declared invalid, its registration will be invalid from the beginning, the applicant cannot obtain the exclusive right to use the trademark, and may face legal liability.
However, it should be noted that Article 44 of the Trademark Law is mainly applicable to registered trademarks, and the trademark applied in this case has not been successfully registered, so there may be certain legal obstacles to the direct application of this provision. For the regulation of malicious squatting behavior, more is in the trademark examination stage through strict control, strengthen the examination to achieve.
Whether the 2. can directly quote new reasons and reasons to reject the application for trademark in the second instance stage
In this case, the court of second instance rejected the application for trademark registration directly citing new reasons and reasons (I. e. malicious squatting) at the second instance stage without hearing the case. This practice has led to a discussion on whether new reasons and grounds can be directly cited in the second instance.
According to the general principles of procedural law, when hearing a case, the court of second instance should usually review the facts and legal issues that have been heard and determined by the court of first instance. If the court of second instance discovers new evidence or facts, or if the court of first instance makes obvious errors in determining the facts and applying the law, it may correct them in accordance with the law. However, this does not mean that the court of second instance is free to introduce new reasons and grounds to dismiss the application.
In the process of examining an application for trademark registration, the examining organ and the judicial body shall follow legal procedures to ensure that the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant are fully protected. If the court of second instance directly introduces new reasons and reasons to reject the application, and the reasons and reasons are not involved or examined at the first instance stage, it may cause the applicant to lose the opportunity to defend and give evidence at the first instance stage, thus depriving the applicant of the right to sue.
Therefore, the court of second instance should be cautious when introducing new reasons and grounds to reject the application. If the new reasons and reasons involve new evidence or facts that are not involved in the first instance stage, and the evidence or facts have an important impact on the outcome of the case, the court of second instance may review and make corresponding judgments in accordance with the law. However, if the new reasons and reasons only repeat or supplement the problems that have been tried and identified in the first instance stage, and do not provide new evidence or factual support, the court of second instance should use them with caution to avoid improper influence on the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant.
3. whether the practice of the court of second instance is consistent with procedural law and whether the applicant is deprived of the right of action
In this case, the court of second instance cited new reasons to reject the claim, whether the practice of maintaining the original judgment conforms to the procedural law, and whether it deprives the applicant of the right of action is one of the focuses of the discussion in this case.
From the perspective of procedural law, the court of second instance should follow legal procedures when trying cases to ensure that the parties' right of action is fully protected. This includes giving the parties full defense and evidence opportunities, carefully reviewing the claims and evidence put forward by the parties, and making a fair and reasonable judgment in accordance with the law.
In this case, although the court of second instance introduced a new reason and reason (I. e. malicious squatting) to reject the application for trademark registration, but because the reason and reason were not involved or examined in the first instance stage, the court of second instance directly cited the reason to reject the application for trademark, which may violate the relevant provisions of the procedural law and deprive the applicant of the opportunity to defend and provide evidence at the first instance stage.
The right of action is the right of the parties to request the judicial organs to hear and judge their disputes in accordance with the law. In the examination process of trademark registration application, the applicant's right of action should be fully protected, including the right to put forward his own claims and evidence in the first and second instance stages, and to make full defense. If the practice of the court of second instance results in the applicant losing the opportunity to defend and give evidence at the first instance stage, it can be considered that the practice of the court of second instance deprives the applicant of the right of action.
Therefore, in order to ensure the correct application of procedural law and the full protection of the parties' right of action, the court of second instance, when introducing new reasons and reasons to reject the application, should clearly state whether the reasons and reasons are involved or examined at the first instance stage, and give the applicant full opportunity to defend and prove. If the practice of the court of second instance does violate the procedural law or deprive the applicant of the right of action, the applicant can file an objection or appeal through legal channels to protect his legitimate rights and interests.
4. Suggestions and Summary
(I) recommendations
In view of the handling of this case and similar cases, this paper puts forward the following suggestions:
1. When examining trademark registration application cases, the examination organs and judicial bodies shall strictly follow the legal procedures to ensure that the applicant's right of action is fully protected.
2. When introducing new reasons and grounds for rejecting an application, the court of second instance shall handle it prudently, clearly state whether the reasons and grounds are involved or examined at the stage of first instance, and give the applicant full opportunity to defend and give evidence.
3. For malicious cybersquatting and other improper applications, review agencies and judicial agencies should strengthen supervision and crackdown to maintain fair competition in the market order and the legitimate rights and interests of consumers.
(II) Summary
This case involves more complicated legal issues related to the rejection of trademark registration applications. It is necessary to comprehensively consider the application of Articles 30 and 44 of the Trademark Law, whether new reasons and reasons can be directly cited in the second instance stage to reject the application, and whether the practice of the court of second instance conforms to the procedural law. Through the in-depth analysis of these problems, we can draw the following conclusions:
1. When judging whether a trademark constitutes an approximation, the overall visual effect, text composition, graphic design and other factors of the trademark should be comprehensively considered, and the comprehensive judgment should be made in combination with the category of goods or services. If the application does constitute an approximation to a prior trademark, the result will be the rejection of the application for registration.
two.. For malicious cybersquatting and other improper applications, although Article 44 of the Trademark Law is mainly applicable to registered trademarks, supervision and crackdown should also be strengthened at the stage of trademark examination to prevent the occurrence of malicious cybersquatting.
3. When the court of second instance introduces new reasons and reasons to reject the application, it should handle it carefully to ensure that the applicant's right of action is fully guaranteed. If the practice of the court of second instance violates the procedural law or deprives the applicant of the right of action, the applicant has the right to object or appeal through legal channels.
To sum up, the examination of trademark registration applications not only needs to strictly follow the legal procedures to ensure the fairness and rationality of the examination results, but also needs to pay attention to the legitimate rights and interests of the applicants to ensure that their litigation rights are fully protected. Only in this way can we effectively maintain the fair, just and effective operation of the trademark registration system.
Key words:
Related News
Zhongcheng Qingtai Jinan Region
Address: Floor 55-57, Jinan China Resources Center, 11111 Jingshi Road, Lixia District, Jinan City, Shandong Province
