All Things Newz
Law \ Legal

The CNIPA Rejected Registration Of Trademark KITION HOME – Trademark



To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Abstract

We, Kangxin Partners, P.C., filed an opposition action against the
trademark, 1207346a.jpg (No. 43686494 in
Class 25) (“the opposed mark”) on behalf of CIRO PAONE
S.P.A. (“Client”) on September 30, 2020. The National Intellectual Property Administration, PRC
(“CNIPA”) examined the case and decided to reject the
opposed mark for registration.

Background

CIRO PAONE S.P.A. is the owner of a world-renowned clothing brand
“KITON.” Through long-term promotion and usage, the
client and their brand “KITON” enjoy high reputation
among relevant public in China. The client registered the
trademarks “1207346b.jpg” and
“KITON” in China over different goods. The client was of
the opinion that the opposed mark is a “similar mark over
similar goods” with their prior registered trademarks. Upon
communication with client, we were entrusted to file opposition against this trademark.

The comparison of the marks is as below:

1207346c.jpg

Key Issues

In the opposition, we mainly argued that:

  1. The opposed mark and the client’s prior trademarks
    constitute “similar marks over similar goods”, in
    violation of Article 30 of the PRC Trademark Law;

  2. Based on the high reputation of the cited mark, the
    registration and use of the opposed mark over same or similar goods
    will easily cause confusion among relevant public.

On October 22, 2021, the CNIPA issued the decision: The opposed
mark is similar to the opponent’s cited mark for in respect of
letter composition and pronunciation, and the goods of both sides
are similar in respect of functions and use purposes. Thus, the
marks are “similar marks over similar goods”, and
coexistence of the marks may cause confusion and misleading to
consumers. Therefore, the opposed mark is in violation of Article
30 of Chinese Trademark Law.

Key Point of the Case

The key issue of this case is that

  1. the opposed mark is a “similar mark” with the cited
    mark, and

  2. the goods of the opposed mark are similar to those of the
    opponent’s cited mark.

With respect to issue 1, the opposed mark is highly similar to
the cited mark, because the distinctive parts of the marks share
almost the same letters “KIT*ON”; although the opposed
mark also contains additional word “HOME”, it bears weak
distinctiveness when used over the goods in Class 25.

With respect to issue 2, the goods of the opposed mark are all
similar to those of the cited mark in accordance with the Chinese
Classification of Goods and Services.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Intellectual Property from China

Patent Law in India

Anand & Anand

The Patents Act 1970, along with the Patents Rules 1972, came into force on 20th April 1972, replacing the Indian Patents and Designs Act 1911. The Patents Act was largely based on the recommendations of the Ayyangar Committee Report headed by Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar. One of the recommendations was the allowance of only process patents with regard to inventions relating to drugs, medicines, food and chemicals.



Source link

Related posts

Federal Court Denies Golfers’ Request For Order To Play In The FedEx Cup Playoffs – Antitrust, EU Competition

An Interplay Between MSME-D Act And Arbitration Act – Arbitration & Dispute Resolution

The ‘Sale And Leaseback’ – A Means To Liquidity In Choppy Times? – Landlord & Tenant – Leases