The Clothing Brand Wants To Be Registered As &Nbsp Of The Peking University Champion; The Court Ruled Not To Register.

Jiangsu citizen Yuan Mou tries to "

Reporters learned in the morning, the Beijing intermediate court has accepted the case.

Jiangsu citizen Yuan Mou prosecution said that he has applied for "Peking University champion" the registered trademark, the concrete registration commodity type is the clothing profession.

Since then, Peking University has raised objections to the registration of the trademark. Immediately after that, the judges decided that the trademark of "Peking University champion" should not be approved, for the reason is that "Peking University champion" and "Peking University" constitute an approximate trademark.

Yuan believes that the reason why the judges refused to register trademarks can not be established.

He thinks that the trademark of "Peking University champion" is a whole, and the combination of four words has its own unique meaning.

Compared with the trademark of "Peking University" consisting of two words, it does not make an approximation from the meaning or the appearance.

Yuan also believes that Peking University is a well-known institution of learning, while "Peking University champion" trademark registered goods for the field of clothing.

"Peking University" trademark has not been used in clothing products.

Therefore, Peking University's popularity can not be extended to the clothing industry.

For consumers, Peking University is an educational institution.

The trademark "Peking University champion" does not cause consumers' confusion or mistaken recognition of the source of goods.

Yuan Mou for example, as early as in 1992, "Peking University" has been registered as a trademark of the security door, and has been approved, the security door industry and the clothing industry has nothing to do with the education industry.

The "Peking University" trademark is not seen on any occasion. It will be mistaken for Peking University by consumers.

Business jury: it is easy to cause confusion and confusion among consumers.

Reporters learned in the interview that the business jury's view on the case is very clear. It is considered that the abbreviation of Peking University as "Peking University" has been well known to the public, while the "Peking University champion" contains the "Peking University" and the social reputation of Peking University. The two parties coexist on the same or similar commodities. Consumers can easily associate the "champion of Peking University" with the Peking University, and mistakenly believe that the two parties are related, resulting in the confusion and mistaken recognition of consumers.

The Shang jury also said that the "champion of Peking University" has constituted an approximate trademark used in the twenty-eighth article of the trademark law, which is used on the same or similar commodities. The registration of the trademark is contrary to the law.

Peking University also took part in the trial as a third person. It believed that the words "Peking University champion" and "Peking University" were literally identical, while the word "champion" was usually used to refer to the first place in the college entrance examination. It is this unique meaning that made a close connection between "Peking University champion" and "Peking University".

Peking University: the trademark of "Peking University champion" and "Peking University" have become similar. The judges of the Shang and Commerce Commission are correct in this regard.

Although Peking University is an educational institution, it does not mean that Peking University has no need to produce clothes. Peking University produces a large number of souvenirs every year, including all kinds of costumes, with the words of Peking University or Peking University.

The champion of Peking University thinks that the business judges have forcibly split the four character Trademarks into two parts. Peking University can be referred to as Peking University for short, but "Peking University" does not necessarily represent Peking University only.

The first instance of the Beijing intermediate people's Court maintained the ruling that the commercial jury did not register, and the judge, Jiang Ying, pronounced the case.

Jiang Ying: "Peking University champion" and "Peking University" are similar in pronunciation, character and meaning.

The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce shall maintain the ruling of trademark objection reexamination of the Peking University champion.