CHINA REPORT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
 
|
HOT POINT
|
|
|
|
 
Simmons was rejected in trademark case
Author:CopyFrom:hits:1434UpdateTime:2015/12/24 14:36:34Editor:

Simmons was rejected in trademark case
“美梦”申请注册“席梦思”被驳
American Dream Limited Company (hereafter as Dream Company) filed the “Simmons” trademark applications for registration on the shall table, couches, mattresses and other goods, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) under the State Administration for Industry and Commerce  rejected the application for trademark registration, for its lacking of significant grounds, and the carried out preliminary examination of the application for registration on shall table, display boards and other commodities. Dream Company refused to accept the decision, and brought an administrative lawsuit to Beijing Intellectual Property Court. Recently, the court made the decision in first instance maintaining the decision by TRAB.
    It is reported that, in April 2014, Trademark Office under the State Administration for Industry and (hereinafter as Trademark Office ) rejected the application for trademark registration for the reason that “Simmons” is the generic name of the mattress, the mattress and related products, and should not be a monopoly for single company.
    Dream Company refused to accept the decision by Trademark Office and applied for review to TRAB within the statutory time.
    TRAB held that, disputed trademark contained a significant character “席梦思” was recognized as the generic name of the mattress, and should not be a monopoly for single company on the couch, mattresses and other goods, while, the use of disputed trademark registration application on the table and other commodities could be preliminarily examined.
    Then, Dream Company brought administrative lawsuit to Beijing Intellectual Property Court. Dream company claimed, disputed trademark “席梦思” came from the surname of the company founder and the company’s well-known brand “SIMMONS”, as well as the corresponding Chinese transliteration of “SIMMONS”, and Dream Company is the legitimate owner of the trademark “席梦思”. And the evidence submitted by Dream Company could prove the trademark is not a generic name, the characters in “席梦思” do not appear in the national standards or industry standards.
    The court held that, although the disputed trademark is constituted by the Chinese character “席梦思”and English “Simmons”, but “席梦思” is main identification section of the trademark, if used on the mattress, spring mattresses and other reviewed goods, it could be easily understood as a mattress by relevant public, and they are unable to identify it as a trademark, thus, it is difficult to distinguish the origin of goods. The evidence submitted by Dream Company is not sufficient to prove the trademark had obtained salient features required for trademark registration through the use when the decision was made.
 (by Mao Liguo)
  本报讯 美国美梦有限公司(下称美梦公司)欲将“席梦思Simmons”商标申请注册在工作台、长沙发、床垫等商品上,被中国国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会(下称商评委)以诉争商标缺乏显著性为由,驳回该商标在床垫等商品上的注册申请,对工作台、展示板等商品上的注册申请予以初步审定。美梦公司不服商评委决定,向北京知识产权法院提起行政诉讼。日前,法院对该案作出一审判决,维持了商评委被诉决定。
  据了解,2014年4月,中国国家工商行政管理总局商标局(下称商标局)就诉争商标作出驳回通知,驳回诉争商标的注册申请。理由为“席梦思”是床垫的通用名称,在床垫及相关商品上不宜为一家独占。
  美梦公司不服商标局驳回决定,于法定期限内向商评委申请复审。
  商评委认为,诉争商标所含显著识别文字部分“席梦思”是床垫的通用名称,在长沙发、床垫等商品上不宜为一家独占,而诉争商标指定使用在工作台等商品上的注册申请可初步审定。
  随后,美梦公司向北京知识产权法院提起行政诉讼。美梦公司诉称,诉争商标“席梦思”来源于美梦公司创办人姓氏及该公司旗下知名品牌“SIMMONS”,是“SIMMONS”的对应中文音译,美梦公司是诉争商标“席梦思”的合法所有人。而且美梦公司所提交的证据足以证明诉争商标并非通用名称,诉争商标所含文字“席梦思”未出现在国家标准、行业标准中。
  法院经审理认为,诉争商标虽然由汉字“席梦思”及英文“Simmons”构成,但“席梦思”为诉争商标的主要识别部分,将其使用在床垫、弹簧床垫等复审商品上容易被相关公众理解为床垫的一种,无法使相关公众将其作为商标进行识别,难以起到区分商品来源的作用。美梦公司提交的证据不足以证明被诉决定作出之时,诉争商标经过使用已取得足以获得商标注册所需具备的显著特征。
 (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