Beijing Yi Shang Food and Beverage Management Co., Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as Yi Shang Company) filed an administrative lawsuit against the decision made by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the former Trademark Review and Adjudication Board) against the request for invalidation made by Bao Caisheng Food and Beverage Management Co., Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as Bao Caisheng Company) against the trademark No.17899096\" Bao Shi Bao Bao Bao Shi Fu and Tu \"(hereinafter referred to as the trademark of dispute). Recently, the beijing intellectual property court on the case issued a first instance judgment, found that the ruling is clear, the application of the law is correct, the rejection of all claims by yi shang company. In the ruling, the original Trademark Review and Adjudication Board found that the trademark \"Bao Shifu \"(hereinafter referred to as the cited trademark), approved for use in services such as restaurants of category 43, and the trademark\" Bao Shifu \"(hereinafter referred to as the cited trademark), approved for use in goods such as pastry and bread in category 30, were similar to those held by the applicant, Bao Caisheng Company. Accordingly, the original Trademark Review and Adjudication Board declared the disputed trademark invalid.
On September 15,2015, Bao filed an application for registration against the trademark, which was approved for use in goods such as Class 32\" Beer \"and in services such as Class 43 restaurants and cafes. Subsequently, the trademark was approved for transfer to IBS. The original Trademark Review and Adjudication Board found that the company also applied to register more than 100 trademarks, including \"Bao Caisheng \",\" Bao Shifu \",\" Bao Shifu Xiaobei\" and many other trademarks.
In response to the lawsuit against the trademark, Bao Caisheng Company filed a request for invalidation to the original Trademark Review Committee in February 2018. Bao Caisheng said that after a long period of publicity and use of the cited trademark, it had a high popularity and influence before the date of application for trademark registration, and that the application for trademark protection constituted a copy or imitation of the cited trademark, which could easily mislead the public and cause the interests of the applicant to be harmed.
In response, Yi Shang argued that the application for trademark registration did not copy or copy the trademark of the applicant and did not infringe upon the interests of the applicant; that the services for the specified use of the trademark and the goods for the approved use of the cited trademark did not belong to similar services or commodities; and that the application for trademark, after extensive publicity and use, had a strong significance and high popularity and would not cause consumers to misunderstand in its actual use.
After examination, the original Trademark Review and Adjudication Board concluded that the dispute in this case was as follows: whether the case of trademark dispute and the cited trademark constituted an approximate trademark used in similar goods or services as referred to in Article 30 of the Trademark Law, etc.
In this connection, the original Trademark Review and Adjudication Board considered that the determination of trademark approximation should first determine whether the goods or services designated for use belong to the same or similar goods or services; secondly, it should take the general attention of the relevant public as the criterion in respect of the shape, sound, meaning and overall expression of the trademark itself, and adopt the method of overall observation and comparison of the main parts to determine whether the trademark logo itself is the same or similar; at the same time, it should also take into account the salience, visibility and actual use of the trademark. Similarly, goods and services refer to the existence of specific links between goods and services, which can easily confuse the relevant public.
In this case, the prominent part of the trademark claim is the Chinese language \"Master Bao \", which is similar to the cited trademark\" Bao Shifu \"in terms of composition, call and meaning, and the two trademarks constitute an approximate trademark; the services such as\" restaurant \"for the approved use of the disputed trademark and\" pastry and bread \"for the approved use of the cited trademark are similar or closely related in terms of sales channels, places of sale and objects of consumption, and are similar or closely related goods or services; and the relevant evidence submitted by Bao Caisheng Company can prove that the cited trademark has a certain popularity in the use of\" pastry \"and other goods through publicity, and that the cited trademark and the cited trademark and the cited trademark are similar or closely related to the above-mentioned goods or services, resulting in confusion and misunderstanding of the sources of goods or services.
The company claimed that the sue trademark and the cited trademark could be distinguished from each other in overall composition, meaning and appearance, and did not constitute an approximate trademark; the sue trademark was approved for use in services such as the 43rd type restaurant, and there were differences in service content, manner and object between the cited trademark and the approved use in goods such as the 30th type of pastry and bread; and its application for registration of the sue trademark was a commercial need, which did not cause confusion in practice.
After hearing the case, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court concluded that the trademark of the lawsuit was a combination of Chinese and Chinese characters, composed of the heads of the Chinese characters \"Master Bao \", the Chinese phonetic alphabet\" BaoShi Fu \"and Bao Mingbing, whose distinctive recognition part was\" Master Bao \". In addition, services such as the 43rd type of restaurant and the 30th type of pastry and bread used in the approved use of the cited trademark are closely related in daily practice. Considering that the evidence submitted by Bao Caisheng Company can prove that the cited trademark has a certain popularity in the use of goods such as pastry and cake, if the same or similar trademark is used in the above-mentioned services and goods, it is easy to cause the relevant public to believe that the provider of the above-mentioned services is also the provider of the above-mentioned goods or that there is a certain connection between the two, thus leading to the confusion of the relevant consumers.
Shortly after the decision was handed down in the case, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court issued a first instance judgment in another administrative dispute case filed by Yi Shang Company, finding that the trademark \"Bao Master Bao Bao Bao Shi Fu and Tu \", which was approved for use in category 32 drinks and other commodities, approximated the composition of the cited trademark and upheld the previous request of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board for invalidation.
Since the end of 2017, Bao has filed trademark infringement lawsuits against 213 stores in 18 regions of the country (including Taobao platform stores), including 163 involving stores such as Yi Shangdian, according to Bao Caisheng, founder of Bao Caisheng. Of the 213 cases,129 have been settled by judgement, mediation and settlement.The result of all the cases was that the defendant's store immediately stopped using the \"Bao Shifu\" trademark to sell cakes and compensate Bao Caisheng for the company's economic losses. Bao revealed that in the early days of the rights, beijing area \"shanzhai\" bao master pastry shop once more than 300, now less than 30. (Reporter Jiang Xu)