Commercial Use (or Not) Test May Cost Easyhome its One Trademark

发布时间: 2018/5/30 14:15:00

  Beijing Easyhome Investment Holdings Group, with over 220 stores peppered in 29 provinces in China after two decades of operation, is bothered by a trademark trouble.

  Recently, Ruling on trademark review administrative dispute over No.3862356 "Easyhome&eh figure" trademark (trademark in dispute), Beijing High People's Court rejected the appeal from Easyhome, revoking the decison made by the Trademark Review and Adjudication(TRAB) allowing registration of the trademark in dispute and ordering TRAB to take a de novo look at the case .

  Easyhome filed a registration application for the trademark in dispute in December 2003 and obtained approval on November 20, 2005. The trademark was certified to be used on the products of Class 11, including aquarium heaters, lights for vehicles, hair dryers, automatic watering installations and furnace grates, etc.

  The trademark in dispute was challenged by the Gemrany-based ALDI GMBH 10 years later. In 2015, ALDI lodged a revocation application to the Trademark Office (TMO), claiming that Easyhome did not make commercial use of the trademark in dispute in a true, effective and public way on the certified products during March 9, 2012 and March 8, 2015(designated period), and requested TMO to revoke its registration.

  After examination, TMO made a decision on November 14, 2015 to sustain the registration of the trademark in dispute. Then ALDI brought the case to TRAB.

  In June 2016, TRAB held that the evidence submitted by Easyhome could prove commercial use in a true, effective and public way on certified products. Therefore, it also greenlighted its registration.

  The Disgruntled ALDI then took the case to Beijing IP Court for administrative lawsuit.

  Beijing IP Court held that the photos of the products presented by Eashyhome are not admitted to prove the use of the trademark in dispute. Meanwhile, the authenticity of the evidences can not be verified as it was reused by Easyhome. Hence, Beijing IP Court revoked the review decision by TRAB, and ordered TRAB to make a new decision.

  This led to Easyhome seeking justice at Beijing High.

  After hearing, Beijing High held that there is a legal basis for ALDI to request for revoking the registration of the trademark in dispute while there is no legal basis for Easyhome alleging ALDI's malice in requesting the revocation. In view of that there was no specified objection for Easyhome towards first-instance court's non-admission of its evidences, Beijing High affirmed relevant ruling.

  In this connection, Beijing High rejected Easyhome's appeal for lacking facts and legal basis and upheld the judgment of the first stance.(by Wang Guohao)

  (Editor Li Xingyi)

  (All contents of this newspaper may not be reproduced or used without express permission)

主办单位:中国知识产权报社 未经许可不得复制