General Media Communications Corporation of the United States (hereinafter referred to as General Media Corporation) found that a company that applied for registration of the "PENTHOUSE" trademark (hereinafter referred to as the disputed trademark) on skirts, shirts and other commodities was not approved for use in gems, jewelry, etc. The "PENTHOUSE" trademark on the product constitutes a similar trademark used on similar products, and at the same time infringes the rights and interests of his prior trade name, and also constitutes a malicious preemptive registration of its previously used and well-known trademark. Therefore, a lawsuit against rights was launched.
A few days ago, the Beijing Higher People’s Court made a second-instance judgment, dismissing the appeal of General Media and upholding the original judgment.
The ruling made by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board) to approve and register the disputed trademark was finally upheld.
According to the editor’s understanding, the disputed trademark in this case, the trademark "PENTHOUSE" No. 4359929, was filed for registration in November 2004, and it was designated for use on the 25th category of goods such as skirts, pants, shirts, and jackets.
No. 4359929 "PENTHOUSE" trademark
Within the statutory period, General Media Company cited its previously approved and registered No. 869568 "PENTHOUSE" trademark to file an opposition application, but it was not supported. General Media Company subsequently applied to the TRAB for review , But did not get support, General Media Company then filed an administrative lawsuit with Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court.
No. 869568 "PENTHOUSE" trademark
after trial, the court's first-instance judgment upheld the TRAB's decision, and General Media subsequently appealed to the Beijing Higher People's Court.
The Beijing Higher People’s Court held that the clothing products designated for use by the disputed trademark and the gems and other products approved for use by the cited trademark did not constitute similar products, and the evidence provided by General Media in the case was insufficient to prove the dispute Before the registration of the trademark application, "PENTHOUSE" as the company's trade name and trademark on the same or similar products as the products designated by the disputed trademark has been used in my country to have a certain degree of popularity and sufficient to distinguish it from the disputed trademark. Therefore, the disputed trademark and the cited trademark do not constitute similar trademarks used on similar goods, and the application for registration of the disputed trademark does not infringe the rights and interests of the prior trade name of General Media Company, nor does it constitute an infringement of the prior use of General Media Company. Malicious squatting of a certain well-known trademark.
Accordingly, the court's second-instance judgment upheld the original judgment.
Qianhui Intellectual Property would like to take this opportunity to tell you that the full-category protection of large-scale enterprise trademarks is very important. It can be seen from the "PENTHOUSE" trademark dispute that General Media did not carry out the full-category protection of trademarks in a timely manner, resulting in trademarks being taken Cybersquatting, undoubtedly, will have a huge impact on the development of your own brand. It is hoped that this case can increase the company's attention to trademark layout.
Qianhui Intellectual Property 20 years of focusing on intellectual property 1 thing
