D&S IP Law Firm Customer: Wu Yong (Huaqiang Fangte Cultural Technology Group Co., Ltd., hereinafter referred to as "Huaqiang Fangte Cultural Company")



Trial authorities: Beijing Intellectual Property Court, Beijing Higher People's Court, and Supreme People's Court



Trial result: The disputed trademark has been revoked



Acting lawyers: Ye Xiujin and Li Shuaiduo



Basic case:



On June 27, 2013, Huaqiang Fangte Culture Company entrusted D&S IP Law Firm to file a trademark revocation application with the Trademark Office for trademark number 5000606 (disputed trademark). The Trademark Office has decided that the disputed trademark will continue to be valid. After D&S IP Law Firm applied for a reexamination to the Commercial Evaluation Committee, the Commercial Evaluation Committee has decided to revoke the disputed trademark.



Ruian Xindi Shoe Factory filed an administrative lawsuit against them, and Huaqiang Fangte Culture Company entrusted D&S IP Law Firm to continue representing their company in the administrative lawsuit related to this case.



The Beijing Intellectual Property Court has upheld the decision of the commercial evaluation committee to revoke the reexamination, and the disputed trademark has been revoked. Ruian Xindi Shoe Factory filed an appeal, and the Beijing Higher People's Court revoked the first instance judgment and the commercial evaluation committee revoked the reexamination decision, and the disputed trademark was upheld.



Huaqiang Fangte Culture Company is not satisfied with the commission of D&S IP Law Firm to apply for retrial. During the retrial, we have proposed that the main evidence 1 and 2 for the determination of facts in the first and second instance judgments are forged; （2） The application of laws and regulations in the second instance judgment is incorrect.



The Supreme People's Court, after a retrial examination, believes that the second instance court should further verify the authenticity of the invoice in question based on evidence such as the amount of goods on the invoice, and then determine whether the disputed trademark was used on the approved goods during the designated period. The Supreme People's Court has ruled to order the Beijing Higher People's Court to retrial this case.



The Beijing Higher People's Court found in the retrial that evidence 1 and 2 in the second instance were false. The evidence submitted by Ruian Xindi Shoe Factory cannot prove that the disputed trademark was used legally and effectively within the specified period. The retrial ruled to revoke the disputed trademark.



The disputed trademark was ultimately revoked, clearing the obstacles for the client Huaqiang Fangte Culture Company to apply for the registration of the "Bear Appearing" trademark on Class 25 "shoes" and other goods, successfully obtaining registration, and achieving a decisive victory in realizing the value of the client's trademark.