CHINA REPORT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
 
|
HOT POINT
|
|
|
|
 
Gucci challenges Guciheaven
“古奇”异议“古奇天伦”
Author:CopyFrom:hits:1788UpdateTime:2015/9/29 11:29:01Editor:

Guccio Gucci S.P.A recently prevails in a trademark dispute in the first-instance decision made by Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court, denying the Fujian-based Guciheaven Company’s filing 古奇天伦 GUCIHEAVEN and its figure as trademarks on products of wallet.
    Guciheaven alleges that distinctive differences in inscape, meaning and overall visual effect exist between the trademark in dispute and cited trademark, thus the similarity was not constituted. Besides, the differences also exist in consumer group and consumer site between the two trademarks.
    The court held that the trademark in dispute consists of 古奇天伦, GUCIHEAVEN and its figure, and 古奇天伦 and GUCIHEAVEN are distinctive to be distinguished. The cited trademark includes GUCCI and its Chinese character 古奇. The letter GUCI of GUCIHEAVEN is similar with GUCCI in pronunciation. The 古奇天伦contains most of all 古奇characters. If the two trademarks were used on the same or similar products, it may cause confusion among the consumers.
    The court also held that despite differences in the price of the products, the distribution channel and consumer group are almost the same. Besides, GUCIHAVEN company fails to prove that the public could distinguish them after the using of trademark in question. So ordered.  (by Mao Liguo)
  本报讯 因认为福建省古奇天伦实业有限公司(下称古奇天伦公司)在钱包等商品上申请注册的“古奇天伦GUCIHEAVEN及图”商标(下称被异议商标),与其在先申请注册的“GUCCI”商标及“古奇”商标构成使用在同一种或类似商品上的近似商标,意大利古乔古希股份公司(下称古乔古希公司)针对被异议商标提出异议申请。在中国国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会(下称商评委)裁定被异议商标不予核准注册后,古奇天伦公司向北京知识产权法院提起行政诉讼。日前,法院一审判决维持了商评委被诉裁定。
古奇天伦公司诉称,首先,被异议商标与诸引证商标在构成要素、含义、整体视觉外观等方面区别明显,未构成近似商标。其次,被异议商标已经具有了一定知名度,可与诸引证商标相区分。另外,被异议商标与诸引证商标在消费群体、消费场所等方面具有一定的差异,不会造成实际混淆。
法院经审理认为,被异议商标由中文“古奇天伦”、英文“GUCIHEAVEN”及图形组成,其中文部分“古奇天伦”、英文部分“GUCIHEAVEN”可认读为其显著识别部分;诸引证商标或包含“GUCCI”英文,或包含“古奇”中文。被异议商标的英文部分中的字母“GUCI”与诸引证商标相同或呼叫近似;被异议商标的中文部分“古奇天伦”完整包含了引证商标“古奇”;上述商标共同使用在同一种或类似商品上,易使相关公众对商品的来源产生误认。
法院同时还认为,虽然被异议商标与诸引证商标实际使用的商品在价位上存有一定的差异,但二者在销售渠道、消费群体等方面具有一定的趋同性。
综上,法院作出了上述一审判决。 (毛立国)

 
京ICP备06005384

中国知识产权报版权所有 未经允许不得以任何形式复制转载