The core focus of the case is mainly related to the issue identified in Article 30 of the Trademark Law, that is, whether the trademark object and the objector cited by the objector constitute similar trademarks on similar commodities:
First of all, the core element of Article 30 of the Trademark Law is “approximate trademarks on similar commodities with prior trademarks, and no announcement” – No. 19,945,424 in this case is designated as a category of goods by the opposition trademark, “ The reference number 3345679" designates the use of the goods in the 16 categories, and the reference marks 992155, 3345677, 8681856, and 10671237 designate the products in the category 21. It can be seen that the goods designated for use by the opposition trademark and the goods designated for use by the opponent's citation mark do not constitute similar goods at all.
Secondly, when the dissidents discuss the popularity and influence of the citation brand “Miao Jie”, it is not difficult to find out through the evidence provided by the dissidents that the products of the dissidents are “plastic wrap, garbage bags” and other commodities, belonging to 16 categories. Commodities, such as the 20 categories of "kennels" designated for use by the objectionable trademark, are not similar. Therefore, this part of the dissident has nothing to do with the case, not to mention the evidence provided by the dissidents that does not prove the popularity and influence of Miaojie.
Third, even a well-known trademark is not a “shangfang sword” and cannot be prohibited from using the same or similar trademarks in other categories as well-known trademarks. What's more, the dissident quoted trademark is not a well-known trademark, and even the well-known trademarks are not up to. According to the principle of light weight lifting, the objected trademarks that do not constitute similar commodities with the designated products of the cited trademarks should be approved for registration.
Finally, the dissident in this case has a malicious objection: On February 4, 2016, the dissident and the respondent signed the "Miaojie" trademark strategic cooperation agreement, which is clearly stipulated in the agreement, registered at 06, 11, 19 The “Miaojie” trademark on the 20, 35 category is legally held by the respondent, and the respondent authorizes the opponent to use it on the 2012 group of commodities, and clearly stipulates that the opponent’s trademark application for “Miaojie” is provided by the respondent. The dissident may not file a trademark opposition or invalidation declaration. The dissident's objection to the dissenting trademark has violated the contract and violated the principle of good faith and disrupted the market order.
Since the analysis of our company's lawyers is well-founded, the Trademark Office finally ruled that the "Miaojie" trademark of No. 19454824 continued to be valid.