CHINA REPORT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
 
|
HOT POINT
|
|
|
|
 
John Deere wins trademark battle in China“约翰·迪尔”成功阻击“傍名牌”
Author:CopyFrom:hits:1458UpdateTime:2016/3/17 15:13:03Editor:

      Beijing Higher People’s Court entered into the final decision for the U.S. John Deere Company , revoked the decision made by Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC), and revoked the registration of约翰迪尔yhdeR trademark.
    The trademark 约翰·迪尔 was registered in September 2004, certified to be used in Class 7 products including scraper, excavator and bulldozer. John Deere Company, however, was not applied for registration in Class 4 lubricants products. In April 2004, Heilongjiang-based Lida eletromechaical department filed a trademark registration of约翰迪尔yhdeR, and was approved by the Trademark Office under SAIC in January 2010. The trademark was certified to be used in Class 4 lubricant oil, grease and lubricants products.
    In June 2010, John Deere company offered the objection application to TRAB. The Company held that the trademark in question was similar with the约翰·迪尔trademark which has been registered in class 7 scraper, excavator and bulldozer products. The company claimed that Lida eletromechaical department copied its registered trademark, which will bring confusion to consumer, and harm its interests.
    In October 2013, TRAB held that the similarity was not constituted as distinctive differences in function, use, consumer and distribution channel exist between the trademark约翰迪尔yhdeR which was certified to be used in lubricant oil is different and约翰·迪尔which was used in scraper, excavator and bulldozer products. John Deere Company was failed to prove that the trademark约翰·迪尔has become a famous one before 约翰迪尔yhdeR filed for registration. It also failed to prove that the character约翰迪尔has developed as well-known trademark in lubricant market. So TRAB held that the registration of约翰迪尔yhdeR does not violate Chinese trademark law and eventually affirmed the TMO decision
    The disgruntled plaintiff then appealed to Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court who would eventually uphold the decision made by TRAB.
    The plaintiff refused the ruling of the court, and brought the case to Beijing Higher People’s Court. The court held that although the two trademarks were certified to be used in different classes, there is close correlation among function, distribution channel and consumers. Considering 约翰·迪尔 is a famous trademark, the two trademarks constitute similar trademark when used in same products. So ordered. (by Su Jie)
  本报讯 近日,北京市高级人民法院就美国迪尔公司提起的商标争议行政纠纷一案作出终审判决,撤销了中国国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会(下称商标评审委员会)此前的裁定以及一审法院的判决,认定“约翰迪尔yhdeR”商标不应予以注册。
  据了解,美国迪尔公司的“约翰·迪尔”商标于2004年9月在中国被核准注册,核定使用在第7类的铲土机、挖掘机、推土机等商品上。但迪尔公司未在第4类润滑油等商品上申请注册该商标。2007年4月,黑龙江省佳木斯市富锦市建三江铁北区的利达机电服务部申请注册“约翰迪尔yhdeR”商标,并于2010年1月被国家工商行政管理总局商标局予以核准。该商标核定使用在第4类的润滑油、润滑脂、润滑剂等商品上。
  2010年6月,迪尔公司向商标评审委员会提起争议申请,请求撤销该商标。迪尔公司认为该商标与其在第7类铲土机、挖掘机、推土机等商品类别上注册的“约翰·迪尔”商标构成类似商品上的近似商标;利达机电服务部申请注册该商标具有明显恶意,该商标是对迪尔公司驰名商标的抄袭摹仿,将误导消费者,致使迪尔公司的利益受到损害。  
  2013年10月,商标评审委员会就迪尔公司提起的商标争议案作出裁定,裁定“约翰迪尔yhdeR”商标核定使用的润滑油、润滑剂等商品与“约翰·迪尔”商标核定使用的铲土机、挖掘机、推土机商品在功能、用途、消费对象及销售渠道等方面区别明显,不构成类似商品。迪尔公司提交的证据材料尚不足以证明“约翰·迪尔”商标在“约翰迪尔yhdeR”申请日之前已经成为驰名商标,也不足以证明在此之前文字“约翰迪尔”作为迪尔公司的商号在“润滑油”等领域已具有一定知名度。据此,商标评审委员会认为,“约翰迪尔yhdeR”的注册并不违反我国商标法的有关规定,该商标予以维持。
  迪尔公司不服该裁定,向北京市第一中级人民法院提起行政诉讼。北京一中院经审理,支持了商标评审委员会的上述主张,判决维持商标评审委员会作出的裁定。
  迪尔公司不服北京一中院的判决,向北京市高级人民法院提起上诉。法院认为,虽然两个商标核定使用的商品分属不同类别,但是两者在功能用途、销售渠道、销售对象等方面存在密切关联,构成关联商品。考虑到“约翰·迪尔”商标的知名度,两个商标构成使用在类似商品上的近似商标。北京高院据此作出终审判决,撤销北京一中院的一审判决及商标评审委员会的裁定,判令商标评审委员会重新作出裁定。 (苏 杰)

 
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