On July 18, 2018, the Beijing Higher People's court made (2018) jingxingzai No.5 administrative judgment after retrial and investigation. It held that the new evidence submitted by a shoe factory in Ruian City was false. The judgment revoked the original second instance judgment and upheld the first instance judgment, and the registered trademark "Xiong XX" No. 5000606 should be revoked.
So far, a seemingly simple case of revocation of registered trademark without use for three consecutive years lasted for more than five years. It has gone through three years of no use review of Trademark Office, revocation of reexamination review by trademark review and Adjudication Board, administrative first instance litigation of Beijing Intellectual Property Court revocation review, administrative second instance litigation of Beijing Higher People's court, administrative retrial litigation of revocation review of Supreme People's court, and Beijing There are six procedures in the administrative retrial litigation of the Municipal Higher People's court, including maintaining the target trademark valid, revoking the reexamined trademark, revoking the trademark in dispute, reviewing the effective use of trademark constitution, instructing the retrial, and revoking the disputed trademark. It can be seen that the administrative organs and judicial organs have different understandings on the evidence standards for the effective use of trademarks.
Our agency has participated in every procedure and link of this case and fully understands every detail of this case. Through the agency of this case, we not only solved the specific problems of the client, but also deeply understood the current situation of trademark application, agency and related market in China, as well as the deficiencies and areas to be improved in trademark and related procedural law
1、 On the legal liability of the parties and their agents deliberately forging key evidence in civil and administrative proceedings, that is, dishonest litigation;
2、 The legal issues concerning the intention of trading trademarks to obstruct the proper use of real trademark owners in order to obtain huge illegal benefits;
3、 There are some legal issues about the administrative litigation evidence rules, such as whether the trademark use evidence can be supplemented in the submission stage and the later procedure.
It is expected that this case can serve as a reference for the revision of the trademark law and the subsequent procedural law amendments.
Date of publication：
Number of browsing：177