Regarding the administrative dispute case of refusal of review triggered by the No. 29199432 "Skin Conditioner ALBION" trademark （the trademark in dispute）， Beijing High People's Court recently made a judgment.
On February 8, 2018, Albion. Co., Ltd. （Albion）， which was founded in Japan, submitted an application for registration of the trademark in dispute to the former Trademark Office （TMO） of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, requesting certified to be used in Class 3 products such as cosmetics and skin care cosmetics and would receive a rejection after examination.
Albion refused to eat the TMO decision and pled the former SAIC's Trademark Review and Adjudication Board for review（TRAB）。 The former TRAB rejected Albion's review request holding that the Chinese word "Skin Conditioner" used in the trademark in dispute may be translated as "a formula that conditions skin", which may lead the public to take it as a description of functions, uses and other characteristics of the goods, discrepant from of Item （7）， Paragraph 1, Article 10 of the Trademark Law.
Albion then brought the case to Beijing IP Court. During the administrative proceedings, Albion submitted more than 33 pieces of exhibits to the Beijing IP Court to prove that "Skin Conditioner" does not have the “generic description” meaning, and a search for "Skin Conditioner" on the Internet results in the company's cosmetics. The cosmetics themselves have the function of skin care, and the trademark in dispute is not deceptive, and should be registered.
Beijing IP Court held that the trademark in dispute was made up of the English words "Skin Conditioner ALBION". Among them, "Skin Conditioner" is not a fixed phrase in English and has no fixed meaning, and the letter combination "ALBION" also has no fixed meaning. The trademark in dispute was designated to be used on goods such as "cosmetics". The public would not misunderstand the quality and other characteristics of the commodities based on their daily life experience. There is no deception in its meaning. Therefore, it ordered the CNIPA to take a de novo look at the case. （Note: CNIPA inherits the missions of the former TRAB after organizational restructuring of the central government）
Disgruntled with the first-instance judgment, CNIPA appealed to Beijing High People's Court.
Beijing High held that, in this case, although the trademark in dispute contains the English words "Skin" and "Conditioner", it starts from the general English cognitive ability and cognitive level of the Chinese public, and based on the daily general reading habits of the relevant public, even if it is designated according to the main translation meaning of the above words, the use of "cosmetics" and other goods will not easily cause the public to misunderstand the quality and other characteristics of the goods. Therefore, the use of trademark in disputes on designated goods does not fall into Item （7）， Paragraph 1, Article 10. Accordingly, Beijing High rejected CNIPA's appeal and upheld the judgment of the first instance.（by Wang Jing）
（Editor Jiang Shuo）
（All contents of this newspaper may not be reproduced or used without express permission）