Bad Faith Filing Of "Bently Lu Zhi In Chinese" Should Not Be Approved For Registration

BE
Beijing East IP Law Firm

Contributor

Beijing East IP Ltd. was founded in 2002 by Dr. GAO Lulin and a group of experienced Chinese and international attorneys to provide top quality intellectual property services in China.Together with Beijing East IP Law Firm, a registered law firm before the Justice Department of the People’s Republic of China in 2004, we offer a complete set of intellectual property services ranging from patent and trademark prosecution, litigation to other intellectual property rights protections and enforcements.
Plaintiff Bin Li He Zong (Xiamen) Supply Chain Management Co., Ltd. ("Bin Li") appealed the CNIPA's decision to refuse the registration of the "Bently Lu Zhi in Chinese" mark with No. 41562537...
China Intellectual Property
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Plaintiff Bin Li He Zong (Xiamen) Supply Chain Management Co., Ltd. ("Bin Li") appealed the CNIPA's decision to refuse the registration of the "Bently Lu Zhi in Chinese" mark with No. 41562537 designated in Class 33 for wine related goods to the Beijing IP Court. The Beijing IP Court dismissed Bin Li's appeal.

The issue was whether the application for registration of the disputed trademark violated Article 44(1) of the Trademark Law (trademark obtained through deceit or other unfair means). The Court held that the plaintiff had applied for the registration of 51 trademarks, including several trademarks containing the words "Bentley" and "Bentley in Chinese", and including marks containing the wing design. "Bentley", "Bentley in Chinese" and the wing design are marks that enjoy certain degree of fame owned by Bentley Motors Ltd., the third party in the automobile goods. The plaintiff applied for the registration of a number of trademarks that were highly similar to the third party's Chinese, English and graphic marks, which was obviously in bad faith. The plaintiff squatted the third party's prior trademark applications with a large number of applications, which has seriously disrupted the order of trademark registration management, damaged the public interest, and these marks should not be approved for registration. Although the disputed mark has not yet been approved for registration, the CNIPA correctly refused the registration by applying Article 44(1).

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.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More