People rush "face book" trademark, Facebook fury v-Facebook-IT information

The Beijing High Court recently for "face book" trademark opposition review judgment of the second instance, finds the applicant registration "face book" behavior to copy, to copy other high visibility marks intentionally, disturb the normal order of registration of trademark management, to the detriment of fair market order, violates the principle of public order and good custom. Accordingly, the Court of second instance upheld the first instance requires judges to withdraw approval of the registration decision, and renewed determination decision, "FACEBOOK" trademark owners United States Philip SIBO g company won.

January 24, 2011, Liu Hongqun to national business administration General trademark Council (referred to trademark Council) proposed "face book" trademark (referred to was objections trademark) of registered application, specified using in 29th class "vegetables canned, and potatoes tablets", and 30th class "coffee beverage, and tea beverage, and candy", and 32nd class "juice beverage (beverage), and ice (beverage), and vegetables juice (beverage)", commodity Shang.

After preliminary examination and notice, the opposed trademark, as a statutory objection period, "FACEBOOK" trademark owner of feisiboke company to Trademark Office Trademark Search. Reviewed by the Trademark Office, ruled by the opposed trademark registration shall be approved. Feisiboke company refuses to accept the ruling, on April 2, 2013 challenged the trademark review and adjudication Board request for reexamination.

April 15, 2014, trademark Review Committee made ruled, think and no evidence displayed feisiboke company had will "FACEBOOK" as firm or trademark prior using Yu and juice beverage (beverage), commodity related of production business field in the and makes of produced must effect, this case Xia, cannot finds was objections trademark of application registered damage has feisiboke company prior firm interests, also cannot finds was objections trademark Department to not due means cybersquatting others has using and has must effect of trademark, So the opposed trademark registration is not violating the provisions of trademark law article 31st; ruled by the opposed trademark registration shall be approved. Feisiboke company, and administrative proceedings.

Court of first instance made by the trademark review and adjudication Board ruled that insufficient evidence complained, so the verdict revoked the ruling complained against, and the trademark review and adjudication Board ruled again.

Not satisfied with Liu Hongqun, filing an appeal. Liu Hongqun believes that it has worked in the FMCG industry and according to the procedures to apply for registration of the trademark black, "face book" and other trademarks, and "black" trademark in 2004 found the visibility from the earlier judgment, it is not a violation of trademark law.

Beijing High Court held that under the provisions of trademark law the 41st article, trademark is already registered by deception or other improper means to obtain registration, revocation of the trademark by the trademark office; the other unit or individual may request the trademark review and adjudication Board to revoke the registered trademark . The legislative spirit of this provision is to carry out the principle of public order and good customs, maintaining good order of registration, administration, and create a good trademark market. According to the context of the provision, which applies only to registered trade mark cancellation procedure, and not to the trademark application review and approval process. However, found in the trade mark application review and approval process by deception or other improper means to apply for registration of a trademark, if not halt, wait until then to commence avoidance proceedings after the trademark registration procedure to be regulated, is obviously not conducive to acts of suppression of the aforementioned improper registration in a timely manner.

The Court held that the foregoing legislative spirit should be run through the trademark applications to review, approval and revocation procedures throughout. The trademark office or the trademark Review Commission and the courts in trademark applications for review, approval, and the corresponding proceedings, if trademark registration was by deception or other improper means to apply for a registered trademark, and can refer to the aforementioned provisions prohibit unfair acts of trademark application for registration.

In this case, Liu Hongqun in several commodity groups registered on the "face book" trademarks, have also registered on the 29th item "Blacks", "one plus one" and other trademarks. Liu Hongqun preceding series trademark registration with a clear copy, copy other high profile brand intentionally, disturb the normal order of registration of trademark management, to the detriment of fair market order, violates the principle of public order and good custom.

Meanwhile, trade mark registration system in China, according to the first-to-file principle be examined whether or not to grant the registration of a mark, but the value of the mark is to distinguish the goods and services source logo, trade mark registration should be the premise of with intent to use, which can bring out brand value. If applicants to hoarding trademark then through transfer, way seek commercial interests for purpose, large application registered others has high visibility of trademark, apparently against has trademark of inner value, also will effect trademark of normal registered order, even hinder Yu commodity economy in the honest and trustworthy of operators for normal business, so the species aimed at large cybersquatting, and disrupt normal of trademark registered management order of behavior should be stop.

The Beijing High Court found that reference to the 41st article on the prohibition of the trademark law by deception or other improper means to obtain registration of a trademark the spirit, this case was of the opposed trademark application for registration shall not be approved. Original judgment is found correct, Liu Hongqun related grounds of appeal lacks a factual and legal basis. Accordingly, the decision to reject the appeal, upheld.

国人抢注“face book”商标，Facebook怒诉之 - Facebook - IT资讯

北京市高级法院近日对“face book”商标异议复审案做出二审判决，认定申请人注册“face book”的行为具有明显的复制、抄袭他人高知名度商标的故意，扰乱了正常的商标注册管理秩序，有损于公平竞争的市场秩序，违反了公序良俗原则。据此，法院二审维持了一审要求商评委撤销核准注册的裁定、并重新作出裁定的判决，“FACEBOOK”商标拥有人美国菲丝博克公司胜诉。

2011年1月24日，刘红群向国家工商行政管理总局商标局(简称商标局)提出“face book”商标(简称被异议商标)的注册申请，指定使用在第29类“蔬菜罐头、土豆片”、第30类“咖啡饮料、茶饮料、糖果”、第32类“果汁饮料(饮料)、冰(饮料)、蔬菜汁(饮料)”等商品上。

被异议商标经初步审定公告后，在法定异议期内，“FACEBOOK”商标拥有人菲丝博克公司向商标局提出商标异议申请。商标局经审查，裁定被异议商标予以核准注册。菲丝博克公司不服该裁定，于2013年4月2日向商标评审委员会提出异议复审请求。

2014年4月15日，商标评审委员会作出裁定，认为并无证据显示菲丝博克公司曾将“FACEBOOK”作为商号或商标在先使用于与果汁饮料(饮料)等商品相关的生产经营领域中并使之产生一定影响，在此情形下，不能认定被异议商标的申请注册损害了菲丝博克公司在先商号权益，也不能认定被异议商标系以不正当手段抢注他人已经使用并具有一定影响的商标，故被异议商标的注册未违反商标法第三十一条的规定；裁定被异议商标予以核准注册。菲丝博克公司不服，提起行政诉讼。

一审法院认定商标评审委员会作出的被诉裁定主要证据不足，故判决撤销被诉裁定，并要求商标评审委员会重新作出裁定。

刘红群不服，提起上诉。刘红群认为，其一直在快消品行业工作，并且根据商标法的相关程序申请注册了黑人、“face book”等商标，而且“黑人”商标在2004年的知名度已经由在先的判决予以了认定，故不存在违反商标法的情形。

北京市高级法院认为：根据商标法第四十一条第一款的规定，已经注册的商标是以欺骗手段或者其他不正当手段取得注册的，由商标局撤销该注册商标；其他单位或者个人可以请求商标评审委员会裁定撤销该注册商标。该项规定的立法精神在于贯彻公序良俗原则，维护良好的商标注册、管理秩序，营造良好的商标市场环境。根据该项规定的文义，其只能适用于已注册商标的撤销程序，而不适用于商标申请审查及核准程序。但是，对于在商标申请审查及核准程序中发现的以欺骗手段或者其他不正当手段申请商标注册的行为，若不予制止，等到商标注册程序完成后再启动撤销程序予以规制，显然不利于及时制止前述不正当注册行为。

法院认为，前述立法精神应当贯穿于商标申请审查、核准及撤销程序的始终。商标局、商标评审委员会及法院在商标申请审查、核准及相应诉讼程序中，若发现商标注册申请人是以欺骗手段或者其他不正当手段申请注册商标的，可以参照前述规定，制止不正当的商标申请注册行为。

本案中，刘红群在多个商品类别上申请注册了“face book”商标，还在第29类商品上注册过“黑人”、“壹加壹”等商标。刘红群的前述系列商标注册行为具有明显的复制、抄袭他人高知名度商标的故意，扰乱了正常的商标注册管理秩序，有损于公平竞争的市场秩序，违反了公序良俗原则。

同时，中国采取商标注册制度，按照先申请原则对商标是否准予注册予以审查，但是商标本身的价值应当是区分商品及服务来源的标志，商标的注册应当是以具有使用的意图为前提，从而才能发挥商标的本身价值。若申请人以囤积商标进而通过转让等方式牟取商业利益为目的，大量申请注册他人具有较高知名度的商标，显然违背了商标的内在价值，亦将影响商标的正常注册秩序，甚至有碍于商品经济中诚实守信的经营者进行正常经营，故该种旨在大量抢注、扰乱正常的商标注册管理秩序的行为应当予以制止。

北京市高级法院认定，参照商标法第四十一条第一款关于禁止以欺骗手段或者其他不正当手段取得商标注册的立法精神，本案被异议商标的申请注册不应予以核准。原审判决对此认定正确，刘红群相关上诉理由缺乏事实及法律依据。据此，判决驳回上诉，维持原判。