The "Mona Lisa" trademark dispute ended after 10 years

The results of this case handling the laws of similar products, similar trademarks, and trademark continuation registration and other issues in the field of trademark authorization have played a legal leadership and demonstration role:

Similar commodities are judged similar products, which refer to the same in terms of functions, uses, production departments, sales channels, consumer objects, etc., or related public generally believes that it has specific connections and easily cause confusion. For judgments of similar products, the auxiliary tools can be used as a reference.

The judgment of the similar trademark and judgment whether the two trademarks are similar, and can be compared from the aspects of its text, pronunciation, meaning, or graphic composition and color, or the overall structure after their respective element combinations.

The judgment of the trademark registered trademark registered registered registered different trademarks with their own independent trademarks, and their registered trademarks are not of course a continuation relationship.

When it comes to "Mona Lisa", what do you think of first? Da Vinci, world famous paintings, mysterious smiles ...

This painting created in the 16th century is now a household name, and many companies have registered trademarks with "Mona Lisa" characters and notes. They hope to use their high public familiarity to bring their popularity itself. The dispute caused by this is not a small number.

On June 14 this year, the administrative disputes that were re -tried by the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the Supreme People's Court instructed the Beijing Advanced Court to review the "Mona Lisa" trademark dispute after 10 years. The court made a judgment: the original first and second trial judgment was revoked, and the lawsuit request of the first -instance plaintiff Hechang Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hechang Group) was rejected.

It is reported that since the establishment of the Supreme Procuratorate Intellectual Property Procuratorate (hereinafter referred to as the Supreme Prosecutor's Industry Office), the first case has the first administrative litigation case that protests and has been successfully changed. "The results of the process of the handling of this case have played a legal leadership and demonstration of the laws on the field of migrant authorization confirmation, similar trademarks and trademarks, and other issues. And actively participate in the construction of comprehensive social governance to focus on the construction of administrative and judicial connection mechanisms, and promote the unity of the review standards for the confirmation of the authorization of intellectual property rights and the standards of judicial judgment.

A few days ago, the prosecutor told reporters about the 10 -year dispute of the protest case.

Something apply for trademark disputes to maintain the value of trademark values

The time returned to December 1999, and a certain Kang Sports Equipment Co., Ltd. proposed to the former State Administration for Industry and Commerce (this function is now included in the State Intellectual Property Office). Trademark) registration application. After review, the trademark complies with the regulations on the registration of the trademark application of the trademark law. In April 2001, the Trademark Office approved the application for the "Mongolian" trademark application. According to the "Similar Products and Services Tables" (hereinafter referred to as the "Distribution Table"), the "Mongolian" trademark was approved in the 11th type of steam bath equipment, sauna equipment, shower equipment, bathroom devices and other products.

Since then, the "Mongolian" trademark has been transferred several times and has been transferred to Hongxin Building Materials Company (hereinafter referred to as Building Materials Company) and Hongxin Sanitary Ware Company (hereinafter referred to as a sanitary ware company).

However, the building materials company and the sanitary ware company found that there is another "M Monalisa" trademark (hereinafter referred to as the "M1" trademark) in the market that there is another "Mongolian" trademark registration than the "Mongolian" trademark. The existence of the commodity of the trademark and the products sold by their own sales overlap, which may cause consumers to confuse and cause damage to the commercial value of their own trademarks.

In March 2012, the Building Materials Company and the Sanitary Ware Company filed a dispute to the State Intellectual Property Office of the Trademark Review Committee of the former State Administration for Industry and Commerce (this function is now included in the State Intellectual Property Office), requiring the "M1" trademark to be revoked. The Trademark Review Committee was reviewed and found that the "M1" trademark was applied for registration to the Trademark Office in November 2004. It was approved and registered in July 2007. , Cooking appliances, high -pressure cookers (electric pressure cookers), washing room (toilet), toilet, water faucet and other products.

According to Article 28 of the "Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China" (hereinafter referred to as the 2001 Trademark Law) revised in 2001, the trademark review committee believes that the commodities approved by the "M1" trademark are used in the "Mongolian" trademark approved. The approximate trademark in the goods ruled that the "M1" trademark of Hechang Group was revoked on cooking equipment, high -pressure cookers (electric pressure cookers), washing rooms (toilets), and toilet, and maintained on the remaining products. The Hechang Group did not convince the ruling and filed an administrative lawsuit to the Beijing First Intermediate Court, requiring the "M1" trademark to continue to maintain registration in the washing room (toilet) and the toilet goods. Request approval.

After the first and second trials were lost, the application for supervision was mentioned

"During the first trial, the Hechang Group introduced another trademark -'M Monalisa Mona Lisa' trademark (hereinafter referred to as the" M "trademark) to this case." The prosecutor told reporters that the "M" trademark was a ceramic company In July 1999, a trademark applied for registration and approved in November 2000. According to the "Distinguishing Table" at the time, the trademark was approved and used in type 19 tiles and other products. This trademark is currently transferred under the name of Hechang Group. Hechang Group advocates that the "M" trademark has a high popularity in the field of tiles and has been identified as a well -known trademark. In the actual sales process, consumers have linked the "M1" trademark (toilet) and toilet with the "M" trademark. According to the "Guide to the Beijing Higher People's Court on the Administrative Cases of Trademark Authorization Confirmation,", the basic registered trademark of trademark registered trademarks has obtained a certain reputation, which leads to The same or similar trademarks for registration are associated with their basic registered trademarks, and they believe that the use of the two trademarks comes from the trademark registrar or the existence of a specific relationship with it. continue. Therefore, the "M" trademark can be regarded as the first basic trademark of the "M1" trademark of the Hetchang Group. The popularity of the "M" trademark can continue to the "M1" trademark, so that it will make it "Mongolia" with the "Mongolian" of the building materials company and a sanitary ware company. The trademark is significantly distinguished.

After trialing the case of the Beijing First Intermediate Court, the two trademarks of the Hechang Group, that is, the "M" trademark is the same as the "M1" trademark in terms of graphics and English calls, and the "M" trademark approved tile field and " M1 "Washing Room (Dumping toilet) and toilets that are approved by the M1" trademark are all ceramic building materials. It has a strong correlation in terms of functions and uses. It is the same in terms of sales channels and consumption objects. Therefore, the two types of products are similar products. The "M" trademark is identified as a well -known trademark, and its high reputation has formed a stable connection with the Hechang Group. The "Mongolian" trademark has a significant difference in consumer cognition. In addition, the "M1" trademark logo of Hechang Group has an artistic M -alphabet occupied most of the space, and the "Mongol" trademark logo of the building materials company and the sanitary ware company is only the upper half of the "Mona Lisa". The lower half reads "Monalisa", which has a significant difference in visual effects and cannot be considered similar trademarks.

Therefore, the Beijing First Intermediate Court eventually believes that the commercial reputation of the "M" trademark of Hechang Group can continue to the "M1" trademark, and the "M1" trademark and approved use on the toilet (dumping toilet) and toilet The "Mongol" trademarks in the bathroom device and other products do not constitute a similar trademark used on similar products. In February 2015, the decision was made to revoke the rules made by the Trademark Review Committee and re -ruled it.

The trademark review committee, building materials company, and sanitary ware company did not accept it and appealed to the Beijing High Court. In January 2016, the second trial of the court rejected the appeal to the original judgment. The re -review of the Supreme Law of the Building Materials Company and the Sanitary Ware Company was rejected again. In desperation, the building materials company and a sanitary ware company applied to the Beijing Procuratorate for supervision, and the Beijing Procuratorate asked the Supreme Procuratorate to protest the case.

Hold an expert hearing and start the supervision process

After the case was accepted, the Supreme Prosecutor's Office found that there were several disputes with the construction materials company, the sanitary ware company and the Hechang Group. The time span was long, the legal relationship was intertwined, and the evidence was complicated. In order to find out the case and accurately apply the law, the highest prosecution -knowledge office was retrieved, and the disputes between the two parties were sorted out.

"We rely on the China Magistrate Document Network to conduct a whole network of cases involving the cases involving both parties, and classify and organize the retrieved cases according to the degree of similarity. Finally A group of convincing cases of cases provided a strong evidence for the proposal of the supervision opinions of this case. "The prosecutor introduced to reporters," At the same time, we have retracted the original trial court's file materials and conducted a comprehensive review of the case in the case. On the basis of listening to the opinions of the parties many times to understand the history of the trademark history and the background of the dispute between the two parties. "

Based on the above survey and analysis, the focus of the Supreme Prosecutor's Prosecutor's Office believes that the case of this case lies in whether the "M1" trademark of Hechang Group violates Article 28 of the 2001 Trademark Law. Approximate trademark in goods. During the first trial, the second trial, and the retrial, they were carried out around three key legal issues: how to determine similar products? How to identify nearly trademarks? How to confirm whether it constitutes the continuation of trademarks?

Focusing on the dispute point, in November 2021, the Supreme Prosecutor's Organization Organization Organization and 5 well -known experts in the field of intellectual property rights in China held a hearing. At the hearing, the parties fully stated their respective positions and views, showing the relevant evidence of the case and the focus of the dispute, and the experts asked questions.

In November 2021, the most well -known experts in the industry and organizations of the Supreme Procuratorate and five well -known experts in the field of intellectual property rights held a hearing.

"Multiple related judgments have different legal standards and different understandings in applicable laws, so it has led to contradictions and conflicts before and after the judgment. I hope that the highest prosecution can start the supervision procedure of this case, unify the standards of judicial referees, establish unified judicial standards, maintain maintenance, and maintain The seriousness and authority of justice. "" Combined with the issue of controversial trademarks ("M1" trademarks, quoting trademarks ("Mongolian" trademarks, and basic trademarks ("M" trademarks), basic trademarks What role is it? What positions do you take for the strong management of the subsequent enterprises and the registration of extended trademarks? It should be said that the legislators and the judiciary have answered, but in this case, it may deviate from the legislative original meaning of the trademark law. With judicial practice, it is recommended that the highest inspection supervision procedure. "In the end, after discussion, the five experts hearing unanimously suggested that the highest inspection supervision procedure and fulfill their supervision duties. The Supreme Prosecutor's Prosecutor's Office of the Prosecutor's Prosecution held that the case was in compliance with the regulations of the protest, and then filed a protest to the Supreme Law in accordance with the law. The Supreme Law instructed the Beijing High Court to retrial.

Clarify the three key issues, and the protest is successful

In March of this year, the Beijing High Court opened the trial of the case. During the trial process, the courts, procuratorial organs, and parties jointly clarified the three major issues: similar commodity judgments, similar trademark judgments, and trademarks for registration and judgment.

Judgment of similar products. Similar commodities refer to the same in terms of function, use, production department, sales channels, consumer objects, etc., or relevant public generally believes that it has specific connections and easily cause confusion. For judgments of similar products, the auxiliary tools can be used as a reference. The "Distinguishing Table" is based on the "International Classification of Trademark Registration Commodities and Services" provided by the State Trademark Registration Management Institution, summarizes the experience of trademark review and management in my country, and extensively solicits the opinions of various departments. If you compile some commodities or services that are easily recognized and easily causing misunderstandings, it can be used as a reference for judging similar products or services when dealing with trademark cases.

In this case, the bathroom devices approved by the "M1" trademark of Hechang Group, the toilet, the toilet and the building materials company, and the "Mongolian" trademark of the "Mongolia" trademark of the "Mongolia" trademark of the "Mongolia" trademark of the "Mongolia" trademark of the "Mongolia" trademark of the "Mongolia" trademark of the "Mongolia" trademark of the "Mongolia" trademark of the "Mongolia" trademark of the "Mongolia" trademark of the "Mongolian" trademark of the "Mongolia" trademark of the "Mongolia" trademark of the "Mongolia" trademark of the "Mongolia" trademark of the "Mongolia" trademark of the "Mongolia" trademark of the "Mongolia" trademark of the "Mongolia" trademark of the "Mongolia" trademark. Both of the channels are in the decoration market, and they are generally placed in the same or neighboring sales areas; in terms of consumer targets, the consumer groups faced by the two are public demand for hygiene; The toilet (toilet) and the toilet belong to the 1109th group under the 11th category, and the bathroom device also belongs to the 1109th group under the 11th category. Therefore, the two are the same in terms of functions, uses, sales channels, consumption objects, and "Differential Tables", forming similar products.

The judgment of the first and second trials of the first and second trials will not be identified as similar products, which belongs to the "distinction table". "In judicial practice, even if there is a breakthrough in the" Distinguished Table ", there are more positive breakthroughs, that is, the comprehensive consideration of product functions, uses, sales channels, and consumption objects Similar commodities, like this in the case, the products that belong to the same group of the same group are not identified as similar products, and are a reverse breakthrough. "The prosecutor explained to reporters.

Judgment of similar trademarks. To determine whether the two trademarks are similar, it can be compared from the aspects of its text, pronunciation, meaning, or graphic composition and color, or the overall structure after their respective element combinations.

"In this case, the" m1 'trademark of Hechang Group consists of the letter' m 'and' monalisa '. The' Mongolian 'trademark of a sanitary ware company and a building materials company consists of Chinese characters' Mona Lisa' and the letter 'Monalisa'. The letters in the m1 'trademark M make artistic processing and occupy a large area, but the "Monalisa'" in the 'M1' trademark and 'Mongolian' trademark is the same in terms of text composition. And 'Monalisa' ' Chinese translated as 'Mona Lisa'. From the perspective of calling, both trademarks will be called by the relevant public as 'Mona Lisa', which is confused, so the two composition of similar trademarks used in similar products. " The prosecutor of the Beijing Procuratorate attending the retrial court told reporters.

Regarding the continuation of trademarks. The trademark registrar enjoys its own independent trademark exclusive rights for different trademarks, and its registered trademarks do not have a continuation relationship.

An expert in the field of intellectual property explained: "There are two main cases to extend registration, one is the extension of the trademark itself, and the other is the extension of the category. Extension registration, especially the extension of the category The areas of other trademarks cannot be extended. "In this case, the" M "trademark of Hechang Group was identified as a well -known trademark in October 2006, and the registration time for" M1 "was When saying that the "M1" trademark application is registered, the "M" trademark has not yet become a well -known trademark, so the influence of the "M" trademark cannot be extended to the "M1" trademark. And the "Mongolian" trademark has been registered on the "bathroom device" commodity in 1999. Even if the "M1" trademark can become a cross -category extension of the "M" trademark, it cannot be registered in the "Mongolian" trademark to verify the product similar to the product. Field.

On June 14 this year, the Beijing High Court retake the decision of the first and second trials of the first and second trials. It was believed that the first and second trial judgments identified the facts and applicable laws. They were revoked and maintained the rules of the Trademark Review Committee in accordance with the law.The procuratorial organs fully fulfilled their legal supervision duties through the protest, and effectively safeguarded the legitimate rights of trademark registration and the right to right holders.

(The company involved in the text is a pseudonym)

(Procuratorate Xu Ridan Chang Luqian)

- END -