Due to the rejection of the trademark application, Pinduoduo affiliated company Shanghai Seeking Dream Information Technology Co., Ltd. brought the State Intellectual Property Office to court, and recently, the Beijing Higher People's Court announced the second instance judgment.
It is reported that Pinduoduo submitted a trademark application for "Pinduoduo" on December 16, 2020, designated for use on Class 16 goods. After the trademark Office trial, on the grounds that it is similar to the previous trademark "PINPINENGLISH", the trademark application for "PinpinEnglish" was partially rejected.
In other words, the "Pinfall" trademark is designated for use in "painting materials; Packaging paper or plastic bags (envelopes, small bags) "goods shall be preliminarily approved, and designated for use in" paper; Printed publications; Newspapers; Photographs (printed); Office necessities other than furniture; Stationery "goods are rejected!
This piece“PINPINENGLISH”The trademark was applied by Shenzhen Pinfall Education Technology Co., Ltd. in January 2015, and was approved for registration in March 2016. The registration category is also 16 types of "printed matter; Stationery "and other goods.
Pinduoduo company is not satisfied, that the two trademarks in the composition of the text, meaning and other aspects of the difference is obvious, did not constitute a similar trademark.
The court pointed out that the trademark approximation refers to the composition and color of the font, pronunciation, meaning or graphics of the goods, or the overall structure is similar after the combination of its various elements, or its three-dimensional shape and color combination are similar, which is easy to cause the relevant public to misrecognize the source of the goods or think that there is a specific connection between the sources.
In this case, the significant identification parts of the "Pinfi" trademark and the "Pinfi PINPINENGLISH" trademark are the Chinese character "Pinfi", if used on the same or similar goods, it will easily lead to confusion and misidentification of the source of the goods by the relevant public. Therefore, the trademarks of both parties constitute similar trademarks used on the same or similar goods.
In the end, the court rejected the appeal of Pinduoduo and upheld the original verdict.
Source: United Capital Knowledge
Related Cases
Telephone：
Telephone：+86-755-82566227、82566717、13751089600
Head Office：13 / F, Building 14, Longhua Science and Technology Innovation Center (Mission Hills), No. 8 Golf Avenue, Guanlan Street, Longhua District, Shenzhen
Head Office：
13 / F, Building 14, Longhua Science and Technology Innovation Center (Mission Hills), No. 8 Golf Avenue, Guanlan Street, Longhua District, Shenzhen
Subsidiary Company：2808, Block B2, Yuexiu Xinghui Junbo, No.18 Tazihu East Road, Jiangan District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province
Subsidiary Company：
2808, Block B2, Yuexiu Xinghui Junbo, No.18 Tazihu East Road, Jiangan District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province
Service Number
Subscription Number
Copyright ©2016 Shenzhen Shenkexin patent Agency Co., LTD All rights reserved | 粤ICP备2021174526号
Copyright ©2016 深圳市深可信专利代理有限公司 版权所有 | 粤ICP备2021174526号 SEO标签
Copyright ©2016 深圳市深可信专利代理有限公司 版权所有
