Beijing Higher People's Court

Administrative Judgement 

(2019)  4329

The appellant (the plaintiff in the first trial) is Huizhou Baode Technology Co, LTD., No. 75 Community, Zhongkai Development Zone, Huizhou City, Guangdong Province.

The appellee (the defendant in the first trial) is National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), No.6, West Tucheng Road, Jimen Bridge, Haidian District, Beijing.

Beijing Intellectual Property Court thought that: Submitted evidence of Baode Company was not formed a complete chain of evidence and failed to prove that the re-examination trademark was truly, legally and effectively used on the approved commodities of "GIME" trademark No. 7806559 (re-examination trademark) during the period from October 8, 2013 to October 7, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the designated period), and the registration of the re-examination trademark shall be revoked.

Accordingly, Beijing Intellectual Property Court, in accordance with Article 69 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, ruled that Baode's claim was rejected.

Decision of Being Sued: Decision of Revocation of "GIME" Trademark No. 7806559 (reexamination trademark for short), [2018], 135969.

Accused Decision made on: July 24, 2018

The former Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board) held that the evidence submitted by Baode Company could not prove that the re-examination trademark had been truly and effectively used on the approved goods within the specified period of time.

Decision: The registration of the re-examination trademark shall be revoked.

The court holds that: The substantive issues of the case shall be tried in accordance with the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, as amended in 2001.

Article 44 (4) of the law stipulates that if a registered trademark is suspended from use for three consecutive years, the Trademark Office shall order it to correct within a prescribed time limit or revoke its registered trademark.

To sum up, the facts ascertained in the original judgment are clear, the law applied correctly and the procedure is legal, which should be maintained.

Baode's reasons for appeal are untenable and the court does not support its appeal.

In accordance with (1) of Paragraph 1 of Article 89 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

The appeal was dismissed and the sentence upheld.

The first and second trial cases of 100 yuan each and were bore by Huizhou Baode Technology Co, LTD. (Have paid).

This judgment shall be final.