Unitalen Successfully Represents Anyang Yintie Fine Chemical Plant in Opposition against Trademark “双鹿”September 19, 2003
Unitalen Successfully Represents Anyang Yintie Fine Chemical Plant in Opposition against Trademark “双鹿”Wenzhou Trademark Agent, on behalf of Wenzhou Jinshi Beer Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “the Opponent”), raised an opposition against the trademark “双鹿” (hereinafter referred to as “the opposed trademark”). The trademark had been preliminarily approved by China Trademark Office (CTO) of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) under No. 1521835 and published in Issue 759 of the Trademark Gazette. Unitalen Attorneys at Law sought the registration of this trademark on behalf of Anyang Yintie Fine Chemical Plant (hereinafter referred to as “the Opposed Party”). CTO accepted the opposition, and the opposed party made a response within the prescribed time limit.
The Arguments of the Opponent:
The Opponent’s trademark is a well-known trademark in Zhejiang, China and has become a common trademark among consumers. The opposed trademark, "双鹿," poses a threat to the opponent’s trademark. The opposed trademark is not registered on goods similar to the Opponent’s, “insecticide” and foodstuff are totally different from each other and cannot be mentioned together. Thus, the registration of the opposed trademark will not only cause significant damage to the Opponent, but also is a threat to the health of numerous consumers. Moreover, it constitutes unfair competition to copy the opponent’s trademark, therefore the opposed trademark should not be approved for registration.
The Response of the Opposed Party:
The using location, designated goods, distribution channel, and distribution mode of the opposed mark are significantly different from that of the opponent’s, thus not causing mistake or confusion among the consumers. The Opposed Party has achieved a strong reputation in the Henan Province. Geographically, it is very far away from the Opponent and specializes in a completely different industry, therefore it’s unnecessary to copy and employ the opponent’s prior registered trademark. Furthermore, the trademark “双鹿” has been applied for by multiple companies in respect to a variety of goods in different classes, and some applicants are more notable than the Opponent. Thus, the Opponent’s ground for unfair competition does not exist.
The Adjudication Made by CTO:
Through investigation, the opposed mark “双鹿” is registered in respect of goods “chloramines inhalator insecticide” in Class 5, while the Opponent’s prior registered trademark “双鹿” is registered in respect of goods “beer” in Class 32. Although the two trademarks have two identical Chinese characters, the designated goods are pesticide and beverage respectively, and distinct differences exist between the two products in terms of characteristic, material, function, purpose, distribution channel and consumer colony as well. Therefore, they are not similar products and the general public is not likely to deceive and mislead the public into believing that the two entirely different goods are coming from the same origin in practice. In addition, the use of trademark “双鹿” was not the original creation of the Opponent. Even if the Opponent’s trademark is well known in Zhejiang Province, the Opposed Party is based in Henan Province, which is a significant distance from the Opponent. The Opponent failed to provide sufficient evidence in its argument that the opposed trademark is a copy and imitation of the prior registered trademark. Therefore, the opposition is not justified.
Pursuant to the provisions of Article 33 of the Trademark Law, the trademark “双鹿” under preliminary approval No. 1521835 shall be approved for registration.