A person named Liu from Hubei Province wanted to file a trademark registration application “DIOR D and wing-shaped patterns” （hereinafter referred to as disputed trademark） on furniture, which incurred opposition from Christian Dior （hereinafter referred to as Dior）， a French garment company. Recently, the decision made by Trademark Review and Adjudication Board （TRAB） under the State Administration of Industry and Commerce （SAIC） of China that the disputed trademark would be registered was revoked, according to the second instance judgment confirmed by Beijing Higher People’s Court. TRAB was requested to reexamine it and make a new decision.
In July 2006, Liu filed the disputed trademark registration application, that is No.5507221 “DIOR D and wing-shaped patterns”， which was certified to be used in Class 20 goods including furniture, fiberglass reinforced artwork. In May 2009, the disputed trademark was approved in preliminary examination and issued later.
In July 2009, Dior filed an opposition to the disputed trademark, citing No.G610601 “Dior” （hereinafter referred to as trademark I）， No.G587746 “Christian Dior” （hereinafter referred to as trademark II）， No.G611645 “克麗絲汀·迪奥” （hereinafter referred to as trademark III） which had been registered before, but failed to be supported. Then Dior submitted an application for review to TRAB. In December 2013, TRAB made the decision that the disputed trademark would be registered. TRAB was dissatisfied with the result and brought it to the court.
Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court revoked the decision made by TRAB, and ordered TRAB to made a new one. Then TRAB appealed to the Beijing Higher People’s Court.
Beijing Higher People’s Court held that the goods certified by the disputed trademark were highly similar and overlapped with the goods certified by Trademark I and II in major functions among consumer groups and family lives. Besides, the logo of trademark I was the same as the disputed trademark in major recognition, while the logo of trademark II completely included major recognition of the disputed trademark. Further, the proof from Dior could prove that trademark I and II shared popularity on the certified goods. Therefore, the disputed trademark constituted the similar trademark with trademark I and II in the certified goods.
So affirmed in the second instance. （by Wang Guohao）
(Translator Wang Rui Editor Yan Ru)
（All contents of this newspaper may not be reproduced or used without express permission）