>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Spider King Group Co., Ltd. v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce and Spyderco Group Co., Ltd. (U.S.) (Administrative dispute over review of trademark opposition)
蜘蛛王集团有限公司与国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会、美国蜘蛛集团有限公司商标异议复审行政纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Spider King Group Co., Ltd. v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce and Spyderco Group Co., Ltd. (U.S.) (Administrative dispute over review of trademark opposition)
蜘蛛王集团有限公司与国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会、美国蜘蛛集团有限公司商标异议复审行政纠纷案
Spider King Group Co., Ltd. v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce and Spyderco Group Co., Ltd. (U.S.) (Administrative dispute over review of trademark opposition) 蜘蛛王集团有限公司与国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会、美国蜘蛛集团有限公司商标异议复审行政纠纷案
[Judgment Abstract] 【裁判摘要】
In the administrative proceedings for trademark authorization and confirmation, the extension of goodwill should be differentiated from that of trademark. The goodwill accumulated by a market player in its business operations may be transferred and extended; however, its business operations at the market are not necessarily legitimate in consequences due to the legality of its purpose. Where the market player separately registers a new trademark with certain connections with a trademark it has registered previously for the purpose of transferring and extending its goodwill, the registration of the new trademark should still be reviewed by the competent administrative department of trademarks according to the law. 商标授权确权行政程序中,应当区分商誉的延续与商标的延续。市场主体在经营过程中积累的商誉,可以转移、延续,但是其市场经营行为并不因目的上的正当性而当然具有结果上的合法性。市场主体以转移、延续商誉为目的另行注册与原注册商标标识存在一定联系的新商标,仍然应当由商标行政主管部门依法进行审核。
Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China 中华人民共和国最高人民法院
Administrative Ruling 行政裁定书
No. 3297 [2017], Petition, Administrative Division, SPC (2017)最高法行申3297号
Retrial Applicant (third party of first instance and appellant of second instance): Spyderco Group Co., Ltd. (U.S.), domiciled in Room A5, Floor 9, Silvercorp International Tower, No. 707-713, Nathan Road, Mongkok, Kowloon, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. 再审申请人(一审第三人、二审上诉人):美国蜘蛛集团有限公司。住所地:香港特别行政区九龙旺角弥敦道707-713号银高国际大厦9楼A5室。
Legal Representative: Wang Yongshan, executive director of the Company. 法定代表人:王永善,该公司执行董事。
Attorney: Wang Yong, lawyer from Beijing JINCHENG TONGDA & NEAL Law Firm. 委托诉讼代理人:汪涌,北京金诚同达律师事务所律师。
Attorney: Jin Chenlin, intern lawyer from Beijing JINCHENG TONGDA & NEAL Law Firm. 委托诉讼代理人:金宸林,北京金诚同达律师事务所实习律师。
Respondent (plaintiff of first instance and appellee of second instance): Spider King Group Co., Ltd., domiciled in Oujiang Sanqiao Industrial Park, Yongjia County, Zhejiang Province. 被申请人(一审原告、二审被上诉人):蜘蛛王集团有限公司。住所地:浙江省永嘉县瓯江三桥工业区。
Legal Representative: Xu Chengjian, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company. 法定代表人:许承建,该公司董事长。
Attorney: Wu Congmei, lawyer from Beijing Wanhuida (Shanghai) Law Firm. 委托诉讼代理人:吴聪美,北京万慧达(上海)律师事务所律师。
Defendant of First Instance and Appellant of Second Instance: Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, domiciled in No. 1, Chama South Street, Xicheng District, Beijing Municipality. 一审被告、二审上诉人:国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会。住所地:北京市西城区茶马南街l号。
Legal Representative: Zhao Gang, Director of the Board. 法定代表人:赵刚,该委员会主任。
Attorney: Li Mengmeng, examiner of the Board. 委托诉讼代理人:李濛萌,该委员会审查员。
The retrial applicant Spyderco Group Co., Ltd. (U.S.) (hereinafter referred to as “Spyderco Company”) filed an application for retrial with the Supreme People's Court since it refused to accept the administrative judgment (No. 4490 [2016], Final, Administrative Division, HPC, Beijing) rendered by the Higher People's Court of Beijing Municipality for the case regarding administrative dispute over review of trademark opposition between it and respondent Spider King Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Spider King Group Company”) and defendant of first instance and appellant of second instance, Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the “Trademark Review and Adjudication Board”). The Supreme People's Court formed a collegial bench to review this case according to the law and the review has been concluded. 再审申请人美国蜘蛛集团有限公司(以下简称美国蜘蛛公司)因与被申请人蜘蛛王集团有限公司(以下简称蜘蛛王集团公司)及一审被告、二审上诉人国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会(以下简称商标评审委员会)商标异议复审行政纠纷一案,不服北京市高级人民法院(2016)京行终4490号行政判决,向本院申请再审。本院依法组成合议庭进行了审查,现已审查终结。
In the application for retrial, Spyderco Company alleged that: (1) The registration of the figurative trademark (No. 4312222) (namely, the opposed trademark in this case, hereinafter referred to as the “opposed trademark”) was an extended registration of the trademark “中吉ZHONGJI and figure” previously registered by Spyderco Company (hereinafter referred to as the “trademark (No. 1212760)”). The composition elements and overall visual effect of the opposed trademark were identical with those of the graphic of the trademark (No. 1212760) and the goods on which the opposed trademark was designated to be used were identical with those on which the trademark (No. 1212760) was approved to be used, namely, clothes, baby clothes, swimsuits, hats, socks, neckties, scarves, belts, shoes, and gloves. Therefore, the registration of the opposed trademark should be approved. (2) After the continuous use and publicity by Spyderco Company, the opposed trademark has maintained a stable market pattern. Spyderco Company has continuously used the trademark (No. 1212760) and it has gained a certain market share and maintained a stable market pattern. In addition, the trademark (No. 1212760), the trademark (No. 1027408) “蜘蛛王ZHIZHUWANG and figure) (namely, the reference trademark (1) in this case, hereinafter referred to as the “reference trademark (1)”), the figurative trademark (No. 1637185) (namely, the reference trademark (2) in this case, hereinafter referred to as the “reference trademark (2)”), and the figurative trademark (No. 2005562) (namely, the reference trademark (3) in this case, hereinafter referred to as the “reference trademark (3)”) have been co-existed at the market for many years and they caused no consumer confusion . (3) The opposed trademark and the reference trademarks (1), (2), and (3) were not similar trademarks that were used on identical or similar goods. There were obvious differences in characters, composition elements, and overall visual effects between the opposed trademark and the reference trademark (1) and they were not similar trademarks. There were some differences in composition elements and overall visual effects between the opposed trademark and the reference trademarks (2) and (3). Even if they co-existed at the market, they did not cause the confusion and misunderstanding of the relevant public. (4) The registration of the opposed trademark by Spyderco Company was an extended registration of the trademark (No. 1212760) it previously registered and such registration should be approved. The court of first instance made no comment and it was an omission in the trial; and it was erroneous for the court of second instance in determining that “the co-existence of the trademark (No. 1212760) and the reference trademarks (2) and (3) could not serve as the ground for whether the registration of the opposed trademark should be approved.” 美国蜘蛛公司申请再审称:(一)第4312222号图形商标(即本案被异议商标,以下简称被异议商标)是美国蜘蛛公司基于在先注册的第1212760号“中吉ZHONGJI及图”商标(以下简称第1212760号商标)的延续性注册,被异议商标的构图要素、整体视觉效果等均与第1212760号商标的图形部分相同,且被异议商标指定使用的商品与第1212760号商标核定使用的商品相同,均为:服装、婴儿服装、游泳衣、帽、袜、领带、围巾、腰带、鞋、手套。故被异议商标理应获准注册。(二)被异议商标经过美国蜘蛛公司的持续使用和宣传已经形成了稳定的市场格局。美国蜘蛛公司一直持续使用第1212760号商标,已经占有一定的市场份额,形成稳定的市场格局。而且,第1212760号商标与第1027408号“蜘蛛王ZHIZHUWANG及图”商标(即本案引证商标一,以下简称引证商标一)、第1637185号图形商标(即本案引证商标二,以下简称引证商标二)、第2005562号图形商标(即本案引证商标三,以下简称引证商标三)共存于市场多年,并未造成消费者的混淆。(三)被异议商标与引证商标一、二、三未构成使用在同一种或类似商品上的近似商标。被异议商标与引证商标一在文字构成、构图要素、整体视觉效果等方面差别明显,不构成近似商标。被异议商标与引证商标二、三在构图细节、整体视觉效果等方面存在一定差别,即便共存于市场,亦不至于造成相关公众的混淆、误认。(四)被异议商标是美国蜘蛛公司对在先注册的第1212760号商标的延续性注册,应当获准注册。对此,一审法院没有评述,存在漏审;二审法院关于“第1212760号商标与引证商标二、三共存不能成为被异议商标应否核准注册的理由”的认定错误。
...... ......

Dear visitor, you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases. If you are not a subscriber, you can pay for a document through Online Pay and read it immediately after payment.
An entity user can apply for a trial account or contact us for your purchase.
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com

 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容;
单位用户可申请试用或者来电咨询购买。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:database@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese