Dior perfume bottle registered trademark was rejected, supreme jury review

category:Global
 Dior perfume bottle registered trademark was rejected, supreme jury review


Dior really is my perfume bottle appearance. Yesterday, on the day of world intellectual property, the Supreme Peoples court retried an administrative dispute, directly related to whether the Dior real perfume bottle could be registered and protected in China. In August 8, 2014, Christian Dior Co applied for the international trademark registration for genuine perfume bottle. Since then, according to the Madrid Agreement on the international registration of trademarks, the Christian Dior Co, through the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization (hereinafter referred to as the International Bureau), has made the application of territorial extension protection to other countries such as China in order to obtain trademark registration in these countries. Since then, the Christian Dior Co has submitted an application for reexamination to the Trademark Review Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the business jury), and the application has been rejected again. Christian Dior Co refused to accept administrative proceedings, but the court of first instance and second instance did not support Christian Dior Cos litigation claim. The Christian Dior Co refused to accept the two adjudication and submitted the application for retrial to the supreme law. In December 29, 2017, the supreme law ruled that the case was tried. Yesterday, the final judgment of the supreme law decided that the decision made by the quotient Committee violated the principle of the legitimacy of the administrative procedure and could damage the reasonable expectation of the administrative relative. The court decided to revoke the judgment of first instance and second instance, and ordered the business jury to reassess the trademark concerned. As for the verdict, experts in the field of intellectual property think that this means that the trademark application of Dior genuine perfume bottle is very possible in China. Focus 1 Is it wrong to reject the application of the trademark? According to the judgment, the fact base of the trademark office is clearly mistaken, and the judges are against the legitimacy of the administrative procedure. During the trial, the litigation agent of the Christian Dior Co side believed that when the trademark was applied for the trademark in 2014, the Christian Dior Co applied for a three dimensional trademark of gold, while the business judge missed the stereoscopic trademark and examined it according to a graphic trademark, and made a wrong decision. The agent of the judge, one of the judges, said that the Dior real my perfume bottle is an international application registered trademark, and applies for the extension protection of Chinas territory. The International Bureau will transfer the application materials to the China Trademark Office. The Christian Dior Co should submit to the trademark office a supplementary material for the three-dimensional view in 3 months, because Dior has not submitted the supplementary material. It is not improper for the Trademark Office to apply for trademark as an ordinary trademark. It is worth noting that after the International Bureau handed over the application materials to the Trademark Office of China, the trademark office did not inform Christian Dior Co whether it needed to make up the materials. The acting representative of the business jury said that it was difficult to serve the foreign parties directly because of the problem of international delivery. The supreme law retrial holds that the Christian Dior Co has clearly defined the specific type of the trademark as a three-dimensional trademark in the review process, and has made a correction requirement by supplementing the three side view. In the case of the fact foundation which is based on the dismissal decision made by the Trademark Office for the application of the trademark, and the Christian Dior Co explicitly regards this as the reason for the retrial, the quotient Committee has failed to review and comment on it, which is contrary to the principle of the legitimacy of the administrative procedure, thus revoking the previous retrial decision of the quotient Committee. Cui Guobin said that the original intention of the international convention is to facilitate the application of the applicant. The applicant for the international registration of trademarks in domestic law has submitted supplementary materials to the Trademark Office within 3 months of registration of the International Bureau, but there is no effective procedure to inform the applicant when the applicant has entered the domestic stage, instead, it is inconvenient to apply for the applicant, the supreme law. The judgment is equivalent to pointing out the inconsistencies between the domestic rules and the international conventions, and I believe that some adjustments will be made in the future of the trademark law and rules to enable the Trademark Office to inform the parties before making a decision to start the procedure. Focus 2 Dior thinks that the real perfume bottle is discerning; the Business Council thinks the container is not enough for the public to identify. Another focal point involved in the trial is whether the real me perfume bottle trademark applied by the Christian Dior Co is significant, which is related to whether the perfume bottle can be registered as a trademark. The Dior side believes that the design of the perfume bottle is unique and has a high aesthetic value. It is very different from other perfume products and is well known to consumers through long-term publicity and promotion. The quotient side believes that from a consumers point of view, the container is naturally not significant, and that the three-dimensional trademark of my perfume bottle still needs to be supplemented by a text description, and the use of perfume bottles alone is not enough to be recognized by the public. To solve this problem, the supreme law should finally decide that the judges should reexamine the application of Christian Dior Cos territorial extension protection. The decision points out that the Trademark Office and the business judge should focus on the significance of the application of the trademark and the significance of its use in the reexamination; the principle of consistency of the examination standards should also be considered, because the supreme law noted that the trademark of the same type as the trademark of the case has been registered and can not be ignored by the case review for the neglect of law enforcement. The uniformity of the standard. Expert opinion: Cui Guobin said that after the expiration of the validity of the registered trademark, it can be renewed, so that other competitors will not have the chance to use similar signs. It is based on this reason that the law is very cautious about the registration of trademark rights. It is generally presumed that the common commodity packaging can not be registered as a trademark, unless a stable connection is established between the trademark and a specific company and brand. Specific to this case, that is, the need consumers to see the perfume bottle will be known as the Christian Dior Co, and then license other competitors to use the shape of the bottle, will lead to misunderstanding of the consumer, in this case, the trademark registration should be permitted. Visit The trademark is in favor of the anti-theft version. According to the final judgment of the supreme law, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce will reassess the application of Diors trademark right. In a reporters interview, the Christian Dior Cos litigation agent and lawyer Li Fengxian thought that if the final judge passed the Dior trademark application, it would bring Dior a positive role in the market, and the counterfeit and Shanzhai products in the market could be more forcefully and more easily through the protection of trademark rights. The verdict of the supreme law will also enhance Chinas image of intellectual property protection in the world. The litigation agent of the quotient of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the State Administration of industry and Commerce said the result of the supreme law held that the trademark review had a procedural law and that the trademark law was currently being amended, and a more explicit description or change could be considered for certain procedures. In Cui Guobins view, the adoption of the supreme law retrial will make the society more concerned about the protection of three-dimensional trademarks. Cui Guobin said that the verdict of the supreme law did not give a direct answer to the saliency of the trademark, but the directivity was clear, that is, to emphasize the consistency of the standard. There is a problem in the procedure of identifying the trademark review, so the supreme law avoids the direct answer to the entity problem, which is more prudent. It is the attitude of judicature modesty . Source: Beijing News Editor: Ji Xue Ying _NN6784 In a reporters interview, the Christian Dior Cos litigation agent and lawyer Li Fengxian thought that if the final judge passed the Dior trademark application, it would bring Dior a positive role in the market, and the counterfeit and Shanzhai products in the market could be more forcefully and more easily through the protection of trademark rights. The verdict of the supreme law will also enhance Chinas image of intellectual property protection in the world. The litigation agent of the quotient of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the State Administration of industry and Commerce said the result of the supreme law held that the trademark review had a procedural law and that the trademark law was currently being amended, and a more explicit description or change could be considered for certain procedures. In Cui Guobins view, the adoption of the supreme law retrial will make the society more concerned about the protection of three-dimensional trademarks. Cui Guobin said that the verdict of the supreme law did not give a direct answer to the saliency of the trademark, but the directivity was clear, that is, to emphasize the consistency of the standard. There is a problem in the procedure of identifying the trademark review, so the supreme law avoids the direct answer to the entity problem, which is more prudent. It is the attitude of judicature modesty .