VICTORINOX's Challenge of Cross-Shield-Shaped Trademark Denied

发布时间: 2018/3/7 10:17:00

  Recently, Beijing High People's Court ended a trademark dispute between Switzerland-based VICTORINOX AG and Jinjueke Commercial and Trading Company from Baoji, Shaanxi Province, by sustaining the registration of No.6482420 trademark "安莉威Anywhere" and figures (trademark in dispute) and rejecting VICTORINOX's claims.

  Jinjueke filed the registration application for the trademark in dispute in December 2007, and obtained the official approval in March 2010. In 2014, VICTORINOX lodged an invalidation request to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) under the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) by citing its registered Trademark No.903585 "Cross Shield (figure)"(cited trademark 1) and No.3491225 "Cross Shield (figure)"(cited trademark 2)。

  VICTORINOX argued that the trademark in dispute was copying and imitating its cited well-known marks. Jinjueke got the registered trademark in dispute through fraudulent or other illegal methods. The figure of the trademark in dispute was extremely similar with VICTORINOX's works of cross shield which had been enjoying high popularity and reputation, infringing the copyright of VICTORINOX. The similarity between the trademark in dispute and the Swiss national emblem was susceptible to ill effects.

  After hearing, TRAB made a decision in August 2015 to sustain the trademark in dispute. The disgruntled VICTORINOX brought the case to Beijing IP court, but the court did not buy its argument either. VICTORINOX then appealed to Beijing High.

  Beijing High held that the evidences provided by VICTORINOX failed to prove that Jinjueke adopt fraudulent method to obtain trademark registration, inflict damages upon public orders and interests, corrupt the trademark registration order. VICTORINOX was also believed having not done enough to prove that its cited trademark 2 had established well-known mark status in its certified class of rucksack, schoolbags, suitcases prior to the registration date of the trademark in dispute.

  In this connection, Beijing High made its final-instance judgment, upholding the first-instance ruling.(by Wang Guohao)

  (Editor Li Xingyi)

  (All contents of this newspaper may not be reproduced or used without express permission)

主办单位:中国知识产权报社 未经许可不得复制