According to a document released on March 7th by the Judgment Document Network, the parent company of Shanghai Station, Shanghai Magic Electronic Information Technology Co., Ltd., filed a lawsuit and filed a lawsuit against the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce. This is from a trademark applied by the affiliate of the station (AcFun)

Beijing Sai Rui Si Culture Communication Co., Ltd., a 100% owned subsidiary of Guangzhou Bullscreen Network Technology Co., Ltd., the operator of AcFun Video Network. Applied for a trademark named “哔哩哔哩” on April 14, 2015. The international classification is category 10, and the exclusive right period is from June 14, 2016 to June 13, 2026..

National Trademark Department website data shows that the trademark use of Cyrus is:

Massage equipment; vibrating massager; bed rest patient urinal; stool seat; bottle; breast pump; baby pacifier; condom; non-chemical contraceptive; sex doll.

For this matter, the plaintiff Shanghai Magician requested the court to revoke the ruling and sentenced the defendant (the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce) to re-arbitrate the disputed trademark for the following reasons:

I. The bilibili barrage video website operated by the plaintiff has a high reputation and influence among the relevant public. Bili (bilibili) has become a service name and brand with certain influence..

2, “bilibili哔哩哔哩” is the trademark that the plaintiff first created and used. Before the filing date of the trademark application, the plaintiff had already applied for the “bilibili哔哩哔哩” trademark first, and in the process of using The plaintiff established a unique relationship, and the plaintiff enjoyed the prior registration of the trademark

III. The trademark disputed third party maliciously squatted the trademark that the plaintiff used before and had certain influence. The facts of the ruling was found to be wrong and should be corrected

IV. The trademark infringement violates the service name of the plaintiff that has certain influence and the commercialization rights enjoyed by the plaintiff. It violates the provisions of Article 32 of the Trademark Law and should be invalidated

V. The third party maliciously squatting the plaintiff’s trademark violates the provisions of Articles 7, 9 and 10 (1) and (8) of the Trademark Law and shall be declared invalid

In this regard, the court held that:

I. Whether the registration of the trademark has infringed the plaintiff’s prior registered trademark.

In this case, the plaintiff filed a trademark in the review and litigation infringement of its prior registered trademark rights. Article 30 of the Trademark Law stipulates that trademarks applied for registration shall be rejected by the Trademark Office if they do not comply with the relevant provisions of this Law or are identical or similar to those already registered or pre-certified by others on the same commodity or similar commodities. No announcement will be made. According to the above provisions, judging whether the trademark infringement violates the trademark right of others in the prior registration, it is necessary to examine whether the trademark of the dispute and the trademark of the prior cited constitute the same or similar trademark, and whether it is necessary to examine whether the commodity approved for use in the trademark is combined with the cited trademark. The same or similar goods. The Similar Sub-division of Goods and Services can be used as a reference for judging similar goods or services. Unless there is evidence in the opposite, the Similar Sub-Committee on Goods and Services should prevail. In this case, the category 10 “Massage Apparatus” and other products approved by the trademarks for use in the competition and the trademarks of the 9th category “USB flash drive” and the 41st category “Training”, 42nd Services such as “technical research” are not in the same category or similar groups in the “similar goods and services distinction table”, and there is no cross-search. There are certain differences in functional use and consumption objects, which are not similar. Commodity. Therefore, although the trademark “哔哩哔哩” is similar to the cited trademarks 1, 2, and 3 “bilibili” in terms of text calls, it does not constitute an approximate trademark used on the same or similar goods, and does not violate the Trademark Law. The provisions of Article 30. The relevant claims of the plaintiff cannot be established and the Court does not support it

II. Is the registration of the trademark in violation of the provisions of Article 32 of the Trademark Law?

Article 32 of the Trademark Law stipulates that the application for trademark registration shall not prejudice the existing prior rights of others, nor may it be unfairly preemptively registering trademarks that have been used by others and have certain influence. The “prior rights” specified in this paragraph refer to legal rights other than trademark rights that have been obtained before the registration date of the trademark application, including font size rights, copyrights, design patents, name rights, portrait rights, etc. And other legal prior rights that should be protected. In this case, the plaintiff claimed that the registration of the trademark was infringed by its prior use of the trademark, the name of the well-known service and the commercialization of the name. According to the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in the review and litigation, the “哔哩哔哩” website (www.bilibili.com) operated by the plaintiff is a comprehensive barrage video website of the user community in mainland China, which has a certain popularity in related fields. The “哔哩哔哩” and “bilibili” related logos can be identified as trademarks and service names that were previously used and must be affected. However, the names of the well-known trademarks and service names based on the well-known Internet-related services and the trademarks approved by the trademarks have a large gap in the content, methods, and consumption targets of the services. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to provide evidence to prove the dispute. In the case where the registration of the trademark caused actual damage, the Court found that the registration of the trademark was not in violation of the provisions of Article 32 of the Trademark Law. The relevant claims of the plaintiff cannot be established and the Court does not support it

III. Whether the registration of the trademark is in violation of the provisions of Items (7) and (8) of Article 10 of the Trademark Law.

Article 10, paragraph 1 (7), (8) of the Trademark Law, which is deceptive, easily causes the public to misidentify the characteristics of the goods or the origin, and is harmful to society. Moral ethics or other signs of adverse effects may not be used as trademarks. The case where the above-mentioned clauses are not used as trademarks is for the identification of the trademark in question or its constituent elements, and not for the registration of the trademark. The trademark in this case is Chinese “哔哩哔哩”, and the logo itself and the meaning of the text do not have the conditions referred to in the above clauses. Therefore, the registration of the trademark is not in violation of Article 10, paragraph 1 (7) of the Trademark Law. The provisions of item (8). The relevant claims of the plaintiff cannot be established and the Court does not support it

IV. Whether the registration of the trademark is in violation of the provisions of Articles 7 and 9 of the Trademark Law.

The first paragraph of Article 7 of the Trademark Law stipulates that the application for registration and use of trademarks shall follow the principle of good faith. This article is a principle clause in the trademark law system. It has made principled provisions on the registration and use of trademarks in accordance with the principle of good faith. The specific provisions related to it have been embodied in the specific legal provisions of the trademark law. Therefore, the provisions of Article 7 of the Trademark Law are not the statutory reasons for the parties to file a declaration of invalidity of a trademark. If the registration of the trademark is in violation of a principled content of the clause, the specific terms corresponding to the principled content in the trademark law shall be used as the grounds and basis for the objection. In addition, the provisions of Article 9 of the Trademark Law advocated by the plaintiff are not the statutory grounds for the parties to file a declaration of invalidity of the trademark. In the case where the defendant and the court have commented on the relevant claims of the plaintiff, the relevant claims made by the plaintiff under the clause are This court does not comment

Based on this, the court made a judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claim of Shanghai Magic Electronics Information Technology Co., Ltd.; if the parties were dissatisfied, they could submit the appeal and copy to the court within 15 days from the date of service of the judgment. And paying an appeal case fee of one hundred yuan, appealed to the Beijing Higher People’s Court