ARTICLE
12 January 2024

Davidoff Wins Another Administrative Trademark Enforcement Action

BE
Beijing East IP Law Firm

Contributor

Beijing East IP Law Firm logo
Beijing East IP Ltd. was founded in 2002 by Dr. GAO Lulin and a group of experienced Chinese and international attorneys to provide top quality intellectual property services in China.Together with Beijing East IP Law Firm, a registered law firm before the Justice Department of the People’s Republic of China in 2004, we offer a complete set of intellectual property services ranging from patent and trademark prosecution, litigation to other intellectual property rights protections and enforcements.
Hong Kong Wanli International Limited is the registrant of the "Davidowen Daweiouwen in Chinese" mark with reg. no. 12873589 ("Disputed Mark"). ZINO DAVIDOFF SA ("Davidoff")...
China Intellectual Property

Hong Kong Wanli International Limited is the registrant of the "Davidowen Daweiouwen in Chinese" mark with reg. no. 12873589 ("Disputed Mark"). ZINO DAVIDOFF SA ("Davidoff") filed an invalidation request based on its prior trademarks. After hearing, the court found that the goods designated for use by Davidoff's "DAVIDOFF" mark with reg. nos. 1790412, G467510 and G876874 and the Disputed Mark fall into spices and cosmetics related classes. In terms of function, use, manufacturing department, place of sale, consumer, etc., they are identical or are highly related, and constitute identical or similar goods. Given that the Disputed Mark consisted a combination of "Davidowen" and "Daweiouwen in Chinese," which is highly similar to the corresponding Chinese mark of Davidoff's "DAVIDOFF" mark in China based on the evidence submitted by Davidoff. Davidoff's evidence can prove that "Davidoff in Chinese" has formed a one-to-one corresponding relationship with the "DAVIDOFF" mark through long term use and promotion. Comparing the two marks, they are similar in terms of composition and pronunciation. Considering such high relevance, the Disputed Mark is highly likely to cause relevant public to be mistaken as a series of Davidoff's "DAVIDOFF" mark and cause confusion. Therefore, the registration of the Disputed Mark violated Article 30 of the 2013 Trademark Law and should be invalidated.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More