The accuser, ‘Guilin Kunhe Culture and Communication co., LTD ’, made the application of registering the trademark in No.12148028. Though the examination, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for industry and commerce claimed that: the asserted trademark is similar to the cited trademark ‘KE KE AI JI TU’ in aspects of word form and pronunciation . The usage on the same or similar goods can easily mislead the the relevant public to recognize the origin of the goods. The asserted trademark is defined as the similar trademark. Eventually Decision of refused trademark in Business review word [2014], No. 74689 was issued.. This trademark was refused to register.
The accuser bought an admistrative suit to Beijing intellectual property court within the legal term. The lawyer from our firm attended the suit as the representative of the accuser. Through the trial, the court found that : between the paper figurines designated by the asserted trademark and the photo albums designated by cited trademark, exist large difference in function, use, production department, sales channels, consumers and other aspects. Therefore the asserted trademark is not the similar trademark with the cited trademark. As for the decision of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board is wrong, correction should be made. The judgment repealed the Decision of refused trademark in Business review word [2014], No. 74689, and asked the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for industry and commerce to make a review of this application.
