It is understood that the trial of the court rejected the litigation request of Nantong baay Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Batai), and the retrial ruling made by the Trademark Review Committee (hereinafter referred to as the quotient Committee) for disapproving the registration of the dissenting trademark was maintained. It is understood that the US twitter company proposed the registration application of the quoted trademark in October 26, 2007, and was approved to register in the 38 types of services such as e-mail, computer terminal communication and other types of services in May 28, 2010. In December 11, 2009, Nantong co win World Trade Co., Ltd. (after changing the name of the company as the name of Thailand company) put forward the registration application of the dissenting trademark, and designated the 38 types of services, such as information transmission, computer terminal communications, e-mail and other types of services. Upon examination, the Trademark Office preliminarily approved and announced the disputed trademarks in December 13, 2010. After being approved by the Trademark Office, the applicant was changed to Batai company under the name of the objection trademark applicant. In March 11, 2011, the United States twitter company proposed an objection application to the Trademark Office against the dissenting trademark, and advocated that the dissenting trademark and the quoted trademark constitute an approximate trademark used in the same or similar service. Upon examination, the Trademark Office ruled in October 22, 2012 that it was not authorized to register the objection trademark. On the 3 day of December 2012, Baite refused to accept the decision made by the trademark office. On the 3 day, the company proposed a review application to the business judge, claiming that the dissenting trademark and the quoted trademark did not constitute an approximate trademark used in the same or similar service. The evidence submitted by the United States twitter company is not sufficient to prove that the quotation was marked by the date of registration by the dissenting trademark. China has high popularity and great influence, and the word Twitter of the dissenting trademark does not have the only correspondence with the word TWITTER of the quoted trademark. After review, the quotient committee made a retrial decision in November 26, 2013 that the authorized use service of the dissenting trademark is the same or similar service as the certification of the use service. The word Twitter of the dissenting trademark tweet and the quoted trademark TWITTER are close to the call, and the certificate submitted by the United States twitter company It is proved that the Chinese translation of the word Twitter as the English TWITTER has already been known and formed a corresponding relationship between the Chinese related public, and the coexistence of the dissenting trademark and the quoted trademark on the above service, which may lead to the confusion or misrecognition of the relevant public to the source of service, and the use of the dissenting trademark and the quoted trademark in the same type Or similar trademarks on similar services, whereby the objection is not approved for registration. Bathay refused to accept the ruling made by the business jury, and then filed an administrative lawsuit against the intellectual property court of Beijing. There is a strong correspondence between the court and the court According to the courts trial, the service specified by the disputed trademark and the authorized service of the citation mark constitute the same or similar service. At the same time, the written pronunciation of the dissenting trademark and the quoted trademark is very close. The former is the succinct transliteration form of the latter. The two forms a strong correspondence, coexistence of the dissenting trademark and the quoted trademark on the same or similar service, which may lead to the confusion or misrecognition of the source of the service. To sum up, the court considers that the dissenting trademark and the quoted trademark constitute an approximate trademark used in the same type of service or similar service. Bai Tai Company appealed to the higher peoples Court of Beijing recently. The scope and intensity of the protection of the exclusive rights of a trademark should be proportional to the significance and popularity of the trademark, and the scope of the protection of the exclusive rights of the trademarks of the foreign language can not be arbitrarily expanded. Liu Xiyu, a lawyer for Beijing strategy law firm, said, tweet did not prove in this case that it has made a trademark use of the Chinese tweet before the registration date of the dissenting trademark application, but also failed to prove that the quoted trademark is a well-known trademark. Therefore, the protection of the quoted trademark should not be extended. In its Chinese translation. The source of this article: surging news editor: Huang Zhecheng _B9302 To sum up, the court considers that the dissenting trademark and the quoted trademark constitute an approximate trademark used in the same type of service or similar service.