CASE DETAILS

On March 16, 2022, a biological engineering company (hereinafter referred to as the "Applicant") entrusted CENFO Team to apply to the Trademark Office for Class 10 Trademark No. 6331**** (hereinafter referred to as the "the Trademark Application"). The Trademark Office rejected the application for trademark registration on June 20, 2022.

The left side of the table is the applied trademark, and the right side is the cited trademark. The cited trademarks from top to bottom are, cited trademark 1, cited trademark 2, cited trademark 3.

The applicant entrusted CENFO Team to file a rejection and reexamination application within the statutory period, and explained in the reason statement the differences between the applied trademark and cited trademark 1, cited trademark 2 and cited trademark 3 in terms of trademark components, pronunciation, meaning, overall appearance and visual effects. It doesn't look similar.

After reexamination, the Trademark Office held that: the applied trademark and the cited trademarks 1, 2, and 3 in the rejection decision can be distinguished as a whole, and the applied trademark and the cited trademarks 1, 2, and 3 do not constitute similar trademarks used on the same or similar goods. In accordance with the provisions of Article 28 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, the application for registration of the trademark on the reviewed goods shall be initially reviewed and approved.

CASE FOCUS

The determination of trademark similarity is the result of comprehensive consideration of various factors. Among them, the overall appearance and popularity of the trademark are important considerations, and the final criterion is whether the coexistence of trademarks will lead to misunderstanding and confusion among the relevant public. The key to determining whether the trademark applied for in this case is similar to the cited trademark lies in the differences in their trademark components, meaning, overall appearance and visual effects.

Judging from the main identification part of the trademark, the applied trademark is a combination trademark consisting of a graphic and the English "opentrons", and the prominent identification part is the English "opentrons". The applied trademark and cited trademarks 1 and 2 are combination trademarks that combine pictures and text. For combination trademarks containing text, the public will regard the text part as the primary element to identify the trademark. Therefore, the main identification parts of the applied trademark and cited trademarks 1 and 2 are respectively It is "opentrons", "YOGU" in English and "carbonic acid spring" in Chinese.

The cited trademark 3 is a pure graphic trademark, and the identification part is the graphic. It can be seen from this that the main identification part of the applied trademark is the English "opentrons", which is completely different from the identification part of each cited trademark and has no similarities. Consumers will not misunderstand and be confused.

From the graphic point of view, the graphic in the applied trademark is a small blue water droplet surrounded by a semi-open circle, and the trademark itself is also a design with a specified color, which is different from the graphic in cited trademark 1, the graphic in cited trademark 2, and the graphic in cited trademark 3. There are obvious differences in visual effects between the graphics in the products, which will not cause confusion among consumers.

To sum up, the applied trademark and the cited trademark are not similar in terms of trademark components, main identification parts, graphic design, overall appearance and visual effects. Moreover, the applied trademark has enjoyed a certain degree of popularity through publicity, promotion and use. The coexistence of the applied trademark and the cited trademark will not cause consumers to confuse or misunderstand the source of the goods. Therefore, the Trademark Reexamination and Adjudication Board supported the applicant’s reasons for reexamination and reviewed the application in this case. The decision to give the trademark preliminary approval is made, so that the applicant's brand promotion, publicity and market use can proceed normally.