The CNIPA concluded the opposition action filed by Shanghai Rongying Brand Management Co., Ltd. ("Shanghai Rongying") against the "Hualai Shifu in Chinese" mark with app. no. 54491795 in Classes 35 and 43 applied by Tangshan Miyuan Enterprise Management Consulting Co., Ltd. ("Tangshan Miyuan").
The CNIPA found that the opposed mark "Hualai Shifu in Chinese" was designated for use in services such as market research and business analysis in Class 35, and restaurant services in Class 43. Shanghai Rongying cited "Hualaishi in Chinese," "Hualaishi in Chinese CNHLS & Design" and other marks that were approved in Class 35 for displayed goods on communication media, and restaurants in Class 43. The composition, pronunciation, and overall appearance between the opposed mark and the cited marks were similar and constituted as similar marks. Parts of the opposed mark's designated services were identical with the cited marks' approved services. The marks constituted similar marks on similar services and is likely to cause confusion to the consumers.
According to the evidence provided by Shanghai Rongying, Tangshan Miyuan was canceled on May 11, 2021, and its qualification as an entity no longer exists. There was no evidence showing that the applicant had filed an assignment for the opposed mark prior to the cancelation date of the applicant. The CNIPA would accept the applicant's failure to file an assignment for the opposed mark if the opposed party cannot provide contrary evidence. As a civil right, trademark right should be enjoyed and exercised by a subject with civil entity qualifications. Therefore, the opposed mark should not be approved for registration if the applicant lost its entity qualification. According to Article 4, Article 30, and Article 35 of the Trademark Law, the "Hualai Shifu in Chinese" mark shall not be registered.
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.