Recently, Zhilin Law won a great victory on the protection of well-known trademark.

Regarding the No. 16000744 invalidation request case for the trademark “PCCOOLER” which Zhilin Law represented, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board established that the application for registration of the disputed trademark has constituted the situation as stipulated in the 3rd clause of Article 13 of the Trademark Law, and gave affirmation to Zhilin Law for the cross-class protection application of the well-known trademark, and the trademark “PCCOOLER” was established as a well-known trademark accordingly.

The disputed trademark was applied for registration by the respondent on December 23, 2014, and approved for registration on March 21, 2016. The approved use service is "outdoor advertising; television commercials, etc.” in Class 35.

The cited trademark was applied for registration by Shenzhen Fluence Technology PLC on August 16, 2010, and was approved for registration on August 28, 2011. The approved use of goods are "computer; radiator (special purpose for computer); computer cooling fan" and so on in Class 9. The applicant submitted a large amount of evidence to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to support the fact that the “PCCOOLER” trademark had reached the level of the well-known trademark, and filed a request for invalidation to the disputed trademark on April 11, 2018.

The focus of the dispute in this case is whether the registration of the disputed trademark violates the provisions of the 3rd clause of Article 13 of the Trademark Law. In this regard, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board has made a detailed review in the decision. It is believed that before the filing date of the disputed trademark, the cited trademark has been widely used and publicized on the goods of radiators in Class 9, and is already well known to the relevant public. The cited trademark is a vocabulary, consisting of Chinese characters“超频” and the number “3”. The disputed trademark consists of Chinese characters“超频三”, which is similar to the overall appearance and text composition of the cited trademark and the same in terms of pronunciation. In the absence of reasonable explanation from the respondent, it is improper to apply for registration of the disputed trademark.

 In this case, the disputed trademark and the cited trademark are highly similar, the disputed trademark is approved to use in services such as “advertising”. It is objectively easy for the respondent to use the popularity and influence achieved by the long-term use of the applicant’s cited trademark to promote their own services. It weakens the distinctiveness and good reputation of the trademark “PCCOOLER”, easily leads to confusion and misunderstanding of the source of goods and services, and undermines the fixed relationship between the cited trademark and the applicant’s goods of radiator. As a result, the interests of the applicant may be damaged. Therefore, the application for registration of the disputed trademark has constituted the situation as stipulated in the 3rd clause of Article 13 of the Trademark Law.

In summary, in accordance with the provisions of Article 13 (3), Article 45 (1) (2) and Article 46 of the Trademark Law, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board has made an invalidation decision to the disputed trademark.