Beijing High People's Court recently made its final judgment on a trademark revocation dispute over No.3384055 trademark "車之翼" （trademark in dispute）， denying the use of the trademark in dispute on sales promotion （for others） services.
The trademark in dispute, which was filed for registration by Zhuhai Xiangzhou Gongbei Guangsheng Auto Parts Company （defunct）， in November 2002, and would, in July 2004, be approved to be used on Class 35 services including advertising, sales promotion （for others）， presentation of goods for shop window dressing, accountancy, would eventually end up in the hands of Zhuhai Dasheng Auto Parts Company via transfer.
In 2016, Bridgestone, a world-renowned tire manufacturer, requested the Trademark Office （TMO） under the former State Administration for Industry and Commerce （SAIC） to cancel the trademark in dispute on the ground that the trademark in dispute was not used consecutively from September 5, 2013 to September 4, 2016 （the designated period）， but would fail to gain support. The disgruntled Japanese company then lodged a reexamination request to SAIC's Trademark Review and Adjudication Board （TRAB）。
The TRAB held that Dasheng's collection of evidence, including trademark license contract and advertising production agreement could prove the trademark in dispute had actually been used commercially through advertising, sales promotion （for others） and presentation of goods for shop window dressing within the designated period, and at the same time, the accountancy services on which the trademark in dispute was also certified to be used were neither identical nor similar to what the trademark in dispute was actually used on. Accordingly, the TRAB upheld the use of the trademark in dispute on advertising, sales promotion （for others） and presentation of goods for shop window dressing, and revoked its use on accountancy.
Unwilling to just move on, Bridgestone appealed to Beijing IP Court, suspecting that the authenticity of Dasheng's evidence, such as a trademark license contract and an advertising production agreement. Even supposing the evidence was authentic, the use of the trademark in dispute would be deemed a nominal one at best, not a use in the trademark sense. On top of that, the authorization certificate and invoices Dasheng submitted could only prove its distribution of tires rather than a use of the trademark in dispute on sales promotion （for others）。
After hearing, Beijing IP Court held that the trademark license contract could prove that Dasheng authorized an advertising company to use the trademark in dispute, which could be regarded as the act of using the trademark in dispute. The advertising production agreement and invoices could prove the above advertising company used the trademark in dispute on spray painting business within the designated period. Considering that advertising and presentation of goods for shop window dressing belong to the similar services in the Similar Goods and Services Table, the use of the trademark in dispute on advertising can be regarded as the use on the presentation of goods for shop window dressing.
At the same time, the IP court held that some past court judgments, main business webpages of the above advertising company and the invoices furnished by Dasheng could only prove it had sold relevant products as a retailer of tires of some other brands, not using the trademark in dispute on sales promotion （for others）。 In addition, the photos portraying the trademark in dispute were made by the Dasheng itself and were taken after the designated period. Therefore, the evidence submitted by Dasheng could not prove it had used the trademark in dispute on sales promotion （for others）。 In this connection, Beijing IP Court revoked the ruling made by the TRAB and ordered CNIPA to make a de novo one. （Note: CNIPA inherits the missions of the former TRAB after organizational restructuring of the central government） Dasheng then brought the case to Beijing High People's Court, but would experience frustration again.（by Wang Jing）
（Editor Jiang Shuo）
（All contents of this newspaper may not be reproduced or used without express permission）