No.6797026 trademark, RollyGo was filed for registration by Zhejiang-based Ningbo Jinmao Import & Export Company on June 23, 2008, and would be approved on August 14, 2010, certifying to be used on Class 25 products including clothes, shirts, coats, shoes, hats, socks and scarfs.
On August 14, 2015, Chile-based Kemo Sangduola Trading Company filed for revocation of the trademark in dispute to the Trademark Office (TMO) on the ground that the trademark was not in use for 3 consecutive years from August 14, 2012 to August 13, 2015 (the designated period).
In a bid to prove that the trademark in dispute had been used in the designated period, Jinmao Company submitted some materials to TMO, including notarized photos of the products carrying RollyGo trademark, a signed contract on the purchasing of RollyGo man-made polyester POLO Shirt from Cixi Wenda Clothing Factory, a letter on authorizing the said factory and Ningbo Jiangdong Xinhe Ouge Clothing Shop to use the trademark in dispute and some pertaining invoices and bank receipt, a signed contract on distributing POLO shirts to the clothing shop.
After examination, TMO rejected Kemo's revocation request as it held that the materials submitted by Jinmo Company were effective. The disgruntled Kemo Company then filed a re-examination request to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB).
On January 20, 2017, TRAB held that the materials submitted by Jinmao Company has formed a chain of evidences, which can prove that it has used the trademark in dispute on clothes in the designated period. As the shirts, knitted garments, coats, sleepwear and baby clothing products (review products) on which the trademark in dispute certified to be used constitute similarity with clothing product, and the trademark in dispute used on clothes can be regarded as used on products in dispute as well. The evidences provided by Jinmao Company cannot prove that the trademark has been used on shoes, hats, socks, gloves, scarfs and belts (products in dispute). Accordingly, TRAB upheld the registration of trademark in dispute on clothes and products of re-examination, and revoked the trademark used on products in dispute.
Kemo Company then brought the case to Beijing IP Court.
After examination, the Court held that the evidences provided by Jinmao Company have built a complete chain of evidences, which can prove that commercial use of the trademark in dispute on clothes in the designated period is real and effective. The clothes and products in dispute, however, were similar products. The trademark in dispute used on clothes can be regarded as used on products in dispute as well. IP Court rejected the appeal. Kemo Company had no choice but heading to Beijing High People's Court.
Beijing High held that, the authorization license, distribution contract, invoices and bank receipts can develop a complete chain of evidences, which can prove that it has used the trademark in dispute on clothes and other products. In this connection, Beijing High rejected the appeal from Kemo Company and upheld the decision of the first instance.
According to the No.1639 trademark announcement issued by the Trademark Office of the CNIPA, the registration of the trademark in disputed goods has been revoked according to law. (by Wang Guohao)
(Editor Shao Jingjing)
(All contents of this newspaper may not be reproduced or used without express permission)