The Beijing High Court recently concluded an administrative trademark invalidation dispute between the appellant New Balance (China) Sports Goods Co., Ltd. ("New Balance") and the appellee CNIPA, and the third party in the original trial, Xin Ping Heng Sports Company ("Xin Ping Heng"). The court rejected the appeal and affirmed the lower court's judgment.
| Disputed Mark Reg. No. 27762331 |
 |
The issue of this case was whether the Disputed Mark's registration violated the first paragraph of Article 44 of the 2013 Trademark Law (fraud or other unfair means to register a mark). The Beijing High Court found that the evidence submitted by New Balance can prove that before the Disputed Mark's application date, its "new balance" brand sneakers have been called "the president jogging shoes" and "the president's jogging shoes" by the relevant public. As an operator in the same industry, Xin Ping Heng should be aware of New Balance's relatively well-known "new balance" brand, but it still repeatedly applied for marks such as "president jogging shoes in Chinese" "president jogging in Chinese" "little president in Chinese" in shoes related goods and services. At the same time, it also applied for registration of a large number of trademarks similar to New Balance's "new balance" trademark, which can hardly be seen as filed in goodwill. Xin Ping Heng claimed that the Disputed Mark was based on the extended registration of the "President in Chinese" mark that it had previously acquired, but the time when it acquired the relevant mark was later than the filing date of "president jogging shoes in Chinese" and "president jogging in Chinese" marks. Therefore, this claim cannot be established. Taking the above factors into consideration, Xin Ping Heng's application for registration of the Disputed Mark improperly used the goodwill of others, disrupted the order of trademark registration, and damaged the public interest. The Disputed Mark belongs to the circumstance of "obtaining registration by other improper means" as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 44 of the 2013 Trademark Law. The conclusions of the original judgment and the sued ruling were not erred and should be upheld.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.