The opposee “Zhang Zhongliang”applied for the registration of mark”PIPPA HOLT”on designated goods such as clothing* and skirts in class 25. But the mark was identical to the important parts of the name of an Australian fashion designer “PIPPA ZARA HOLT”. So the registration of the mark infringed the name rights of the designer, and the designer “PIPPA ZARA HOLT”entrusted Gaowo to file an opposition against the mark “PIPPA HOLT”.
Our attorney thinks that without authorization of the opponent, the opposee applied for the registration of the opposed mark “PIPPA HOLT”which is identical to the name of the opponent “PIPPA ZARA HOLT”, which will infringe the name rights of the opponent and violate the regulations “An application for the registration of a trademark shall not create any prejudice to the prior right of another person”of Article 32 of Trademark Law. So the opposed mark should not be approved of registration.
Firstly, there is no doubt that the name of the opponent was “PIPPA ZARA HOLT”. And according to the custom of arranging surnames and first names in European and American names, their names consist of three parts: first name, middle name and surname among which the first name and surname are more important, while the middle name is often omitted. For example, the full name of Michael·Jordan is Michael·Jeffrey·Jordan. But it is the “Michael·Jordan”that is well known to the public. So it is a convention that the middle name is dropped. So the main part of the opponent’s name is “PIPPA HOLT”. These two parts are enough to point to the opponent. So it is certain that “PIPPA HOLT”is the name of the opponent.
Besides, the letters contained in the opposed mark“
”are identical to the name of the opponent “
”. So the opposed trademark shall be judged to be the same as the name of the opponent
What’s more, the birth date of the opponent is November 26th, 1974 since which the opponent has enjoyed the name rights of “
”. While the opposed mark was applied on December 29th, 2016. It is obvious that the date when the opponent starts to enjoy the name right of “
”is earlier than the applied date of the opposed mark. So the registration of the opposed mark infringed the name rights of the opponent.
Finally, the opponent, as a fashion designer, has created the clothing brand “PIPPA HOLT”--Turkish cotton smock with his own name and the “PIPPA HOLT”brand has entered Chinese market before the applied date of the opposed mark and has high popularity and influence in China. During the process to operate the “PIPPA HOLT”brand, the opponent kept improving himself and took part in different PR activities by which the opponent has established well-known and excellent personal image and obtained high popularity among the relevant public. So it shows that“PIPPA HOLT”has great popularity and important influence in rag trade. And the personality charm of the fashion designer is so strong that a good and popular social image of the designer has been established.
The designated products of the opposed mark are “clothing;ready-made clothing; skirt; children’s wear; trousers / pants (Am.); shoes*; hats;hosiery; scarves / scarfs; girdles ”which are similar to products of the “PIPPA HOLT” of the opponent. If the opposed mark is registered, the relevant public will think of the opponent’s brand or associated brand when they see the opposed mark, which will arise confusion about the products bearing the opposed mark and the products operated by the opponent. It will inevitably cause damage to the name right of the opponent and the brand "PIPPA HOLT".
Based on reasonable and professional analysis of our attorney, the Trademark Office did not approve the opposed mark of registration according to the regulations of Article 32 of Trademark Law.
