Briefing on Review Application for Rejection against Device Trademark

发布时间：2017.06.16

The total amount of direct applications filed with China Trademark Office has been ranking the first place consecutively for the recent decade. On the other hand, trademark applicants have been troubled with the rejection notices, for which only review procedures to last for another nine months could be adopted, and more than often fail to reverse the outcome. It is now universally acknowledged among both domestic and foreign applicants that rejected results come easy for Chinese trademarks, and review applications have not been satisfactorily helpful, helplessly at a loss about the standard for similarity and the likelihood of actual confusion judgment by the Office.

Recently, two review applications represented by MY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY for rejections against a device trademark under different classes have received the decisions of reviews. The review board ruled that the such substantive distinctiveness between the trademark requesting review from the referenced prior trademarks in terms of pronunciation and appearance that the trademark of interested is not similar to the referenced trademarks and therefore granted preliminary approvals.

During the examination procedure, the trademark of interest consisting of a simple device and Latin letters was rejected for the device part being considered similar with several prior trademarks. Upon filing for review, the attorney compared the trademarks from the appearance, meaning and pronunciation and set forth full argument how and why there is no possibility for actual confusion between the trademark requesting for review and the referenced marks. Proofs and materials demonstrating the previous use and fame accumulated under the trademark in its original country Japan, and the use in China were also submitted for the Board’s review.