CHINA REPORT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
 
|
HOT POINT
|
|
|
|
 
FREDDIE MAC wins trademark dispute
“FREDDIE MAC”商标在华维权成功
Author:CopyFrom:hits:1502UpdateTime:2015/11/12 15:50:15Editor:

Recently, Beijing Higher People’s Court made the final judgement that, the trademark “房地美” (hereafter as the questioned trademark) registered  by Henan QiDu Real Estate Agency Co.,Ltd(hereafter as Qi Du) constituted similar trademarks used on the same or similar service with the English trademark FREDDIE MAC(hereafter as the cited trademark) by Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation(hereafter as Freddie Mac). The higher court’s final judgment maintained the original court’s ruling and dismissed Qi Du’s claims of trademark registration of ”房地美”.
Before that, FREDDIE MAC questioned for constituting similar trademarks of both trademarks. After examination, Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) under the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of China(SAIC) rejected the registration of the questioned trademark. The case was brought to administrative proceedings.
    The questioned No“6554134” trademark “房地美” was approved through the preliminary examination in June 2010. Freddie Mac challenged the questioned trademark in Sept. 2010. In May 2012, the Trademark Office(TMO) Of SAIC approved the registration of the questioned trademark.
    The disgruntled plaintiff submitted review of the registration of the mark to TRAB. In Oct 2013, TRAB cancelled the registration. Qi Du then brought the case to Beijing No.1 Intermidate People’s Court.
    In 2014, the court rejected the claims made by Qi Du and upheld TRAB’s ruling. Qi Du then appealed to Beijing Higher People’s court.
     The higher court held that current evidence is sufficient to testify“房地美” is a form of translation of  “FREDDIE MAC” and the two marks have a corresponding relation. The cited trademark has enjoyed some reputation on financial service such as mortgage loan. Meanwhile , the questioned trademark“房地美” is the same as the Chinese translation of “FREDDIE MAC”. In view of the cited trademark’s distinctiveness and high reputation, the usage of two marks could easily mislead the consumers who tend to think the questioned mark has some association with the company “FREDDIE MAC”.
    For the reasons above, the court made the final judement.
 (by Mao Liguo)
  本报讯 日前,北京市高级人民法院作出判决,认定被异议的河南七都不动产经纪有限公司(下称七都公司)在银行等服务上申请注册的“房地美”商标(下称被异议商标)与引证的美国联邦家庭贷款抵押有限公司(下称联邦公司)的英文商标“FREDDIE MAC”(下称引证商标)构成使用在同一种或类似服务上的近似商标,据此终审判决维持了原判,即维持商评委作出的对被异议商标不予核准注册的裁定。
  此前,联邦公司七都公司就七都公司的被异议商标与其引证商标构成类似商标提出异议。在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,该案进入行政诉讼阶段。
  2010年6月,被异议的第6554134号“房地美”商标通过初审并公告。2010年9月,联邦公司针对被异议商标提出异议申请。2012年5月,中国国家工商行政管理总局商标局作出裁定,对被异议商标予以核准注册。
  联邦公司不服商评委裁定,于2012年6月向商评委提出复审申请。2013年10月,商评委作出裁定,对被异议商标不予核准注册。七都公司不服商评委裁定,随后向法院提起行政诉讼。
  2014年,北京市第一中级人民一审判决驳回了七都公司的诉讼请求,维持了商评委被诉裁定。七都公司随后向北京市高级人民法院提起上诉。
  二审法院经审理认为,现有证据可以证明“房地美”是FREDDIE MAC”的一种翻译形式,二者已形成对应关系,且在抵押贷款等金融服务上具有一定知名度。同时,被异议商标“房地美”与引证商标“FREDDIE MAC”对应的中文翻译“房地美”完全相同。在被异议商标与引证商标对应中文完全相同的情况下,考虑到引证商标中文翻译“房地美”具有较强显著性,且其在抵押贷款等金融服务上的知名度,被异议商标与引证商标同时使用在上述服务上易使相关公众产生混淆误认,认为被异议商标与联邦公司存在某种联系。
  综上,二审法院据此作出上述终审判决。 (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