Fineland IP

Fineland IP Contact information, map and directions, contact form, opening hours, services, ratings, photos, videos and announcements from Fineland IP, Intellectual Property Lawyer, 1104-2, Tianchuang Science Plaza, No. 8 Caihefang Road, Haidian District, Beijing.

Fineland IP is one of the few domestic organizations that can provide comprehensive legal services in intellectual property’s application, establishment, maintenance and litigation.

Beijing Fineland IP Firm succeeded in safeguarding its rights during review of refused trademark on behalf of “ONULON”.
24/02/2023

Beijing Fineland IP Firm succeeded in safeguarding its rights during review of refused trademark on behalf of “ONULON”.

12/11/2022

Notice of Comparison Table of Similar Classes in China, Japan and South Korea.
In June 2022, Japan Patent Office released a comparison table of similar class codes among China,
Japan and South Korea corresponding to NCL (11-2022). Japan Patent Office (JPO), National Intellectual
Property Administration of China (CNIPA) and Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) are working on
a joint project to develop an index table to indicate the correspondence among similar classes. The
Japan Patent Office, National Intellectual Property Administration of China and the Korean Intellectual
Property Office examine trademarks under a tripartite agreement signed by the three bureaus. The
project aims to improve the predictability of examination result by encouraging users who file
trademark applications in Japan, China and South Korea to use index lists when searching for the
presence of registered trademarks.

Beijing Fineland IP Firm succeeded in safeguarding its rights during trademark invalidation action on behalf of “摩珂”.Our...
05/11/2022

Beijing Fineland IP Firm succeeded in safeguarding its rights during trademark invalidation action on behalf of “摩珂”.

Our company, Beijing Fineland IP Firm, was entrusted by Moke International Limited to file a request for invalidation against the trademark no. 49921816 "摩珂" applied by Wang Gaocuan on the commodity category 12. After CNIPA's examination, we finally succeeded in safeguarding its rights.

Brief Description of the Case

1."MOKE" is the main automobile brand of the applicant, and the application date of the applicant's cited trademark is significantly earlier than the application date of the disputed trademark. Therefore, the applicant has an irrefutable right to the prior trademark.

2.The disputed trademark is highly similar to the cited trademark which is previously registered by the applicant in terms of word part, and they are designated to be used on similar goods, which constitutes similar trademarks on similar goods.
By comparison, it can be seen that the English word in the disputed trademark is "MOKE", while the applicant's cited trademark is "e-moke" in terms of text composition. Among “E-MOKE”, "E-" used in the commodity of "vehicle and means of transportation" represents that the energy of the vehicle is "electric", which has very weak significance in the trademark. Therefore, the distinctive identification part of the cited mark lies in the English word "MOKE", taken from the applicant's business name. In terms of text composition, the English word in the disputed trademark is exactly the same as the prominent part of the applicant's cited mark, and they two completely constitute similar trademark. Therefore, the disputed trademark shall be given invalidation declaration.

3."MOKE", as the car brand created by the applicant, has been successfully registered in many countries and regions. The applicant's brand "MOKE" has a high popularity through the applicant's continuous use and publicity, which has formed a unique designated relationship with the applicant.

4.The English part of the disputed trademark is exactly the same as the enterprise name of the applicant. The registration application of the disputed trademark infringes the applicant's prior trade name right and violates the relevant provisions of Article 32 of the Trademark Law, so it shall be given invalidation declaration.

5.As a trademark grabber, it is obvious that the applicant of the disputed mark knows the applicant's highly well-known and influential brand "MOKE", which belongs to malicious registration behavior of plagiarism and imitation of others' well-known trademark. In addition, the disputed mark "MOKE" is highly similar to applicant's mark "MOKE", it will easily cause the relevant public mistakenly believe that the applicants’ series trademarks may have a certain connection, thus causing confusion and false recognition of the source of goods. Therefore, the opponent's behavior violates the provisions of Article 4, Article 7, Article 10 .1.7, Article 10 .1.8, and Article 44（1）of the Trademark Law, and the disputed trademark shall be given invalidation declaration.

In accordance with the provisions of Article 30, Article 44(1), Article 44(3), Article 45.1, Article 45(2), Article 46 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, CNIPA has decided as follows: The disputed trademark shall be given invalidation declaration.

Beijing Fineland IP Firm succeeded in safeguarding its rights during review of refused trademark on behalf of“TUTURI”.Th...
29/10/2022

Beijing Fineland IP Firm succeeded in safeguarding its rights during review of refused trademark on behalf of“TUTURI”.

The applicant, Tropical Resources (Asia) Co., Ltd., was unwilling to accept the refused trademark decision issued by CNIPA, and entrusted Beijing Fineland IP Firm to file request for review of refused trademark with CNIPA, and finally succeeded in safeguarding its rights.

1.The applicant attaches great importance to the applied trademark which has been put into use in commodity packaging, labels, brochures, exhibitions, etc. and has certain popularity and influence.

2.The applied trademark is designed by the applicant itself and has originality. The applied trademark and the cited trademark 1-2 all contain the design element of "兔". The graphic in each trademark is animal that is common to the public and cannot be exclusively owned by one enterprise. Moreover, the applied trademark is mainly composed of the word "tuturi", and the graphic is only used as the background modification of the trademark with very weak significance.

(1),Analysis from the prominent part and pronunciation: the applied trademark consists of two parts: graphic and English word. "tuturi" is the prominent part of the trademark, and the applied trademark is actually advertised as "兔兔乐" and pronounced accordingly. Cited Trademark 1 consists of two parts: the graphic and the Chinese words "绿谷小兔". "绿谷小兔" is a prominent part of the trademark and is called by the Chinese words. Citation Trademark 2 consists of three parts: graphic, Chinese characters "兔伙伴", and English word "TUHUOBAN". "兔伙伴" is the prominent part of the trademark and is called by that Chinese characters.

(2), Analysis from the meaning: the applied mark expresses the applicant's feeling of lovely and happy. The cited mark 1 refers to its brand and indicates that it offers green and healthy food. The main business scope of cited mark 2 is breeding and sale of rabbit, cat, dog and pet supplies, and the mark expresses the owner's feeling of protection and cherish of pets.

(3), Analysis from the composition and overall appearance: the applied trademark is composed of two elements: word and graphic, and the graphic is located above the trademark which only works as a decorative element of the whole trademark. However, the details of the graphics of the applied trademark and cited trademark 1-2 are completely different, resulting in obvious differences in the overall arrangement and visual effects. The applied trademark and cited trademark 1-2 have significant differences in pronunciation, overall appearance and visual effect, which do not constitute similar trademarks.

In accordance with the provisions of Article 28 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, CNIPA has decided as follows: The applied trademark’s registration application on review service is preliminarily approved.

18/10/2022

On September 23, ET, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar urged the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on a $113 million trademark infringement case involving radio control systems.

The case could determine whether the jurisdiction of the Lanham Act, a US trademark law, can be extended beyond the US. In March 2020, an Oklahoma City jury awarded Hetronic Germany and its affiliates more than $112.7 million in damages for trademark infringement of Hetronic International. In 2021, the 10th Circuit Court upheld that decision. Following an appeal by Hetronic Germany and its subsidiaries, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals said in August 2021 that the injunction was too broad, but other decisions were upheld, with the Tenth Circuit holding that the Lanham Act applied to conduct outside the United States.

28/09/2022

The Japan Patent Office and the ASEAN Intellectual Property Office Have Reached a Cooperation Agreement.
On August 26, 2022, the Japan Patent Office (JPO) and the Intellectual Property Office of the Alliance of Southeast Asian Countries (ASEAN)-(member states IPO) held the 12th Meeting of the Japan-ASEAN Intellectual Property Office Directors in Malacca, Malaysia.
At the meeting, JPO and ASEAN member states IPO agreed on the Japan-ASEAN Intellectual Property Action Plan for fiscal year 2022-2023. In addition, the ASEAN and East Asian Economic Research Institute (ERIA) submitted an interim report on the patent review practices and patent information utilization research of AI inventions, which was completed by the IPO cooperation of the ASEAN member states. On the sidelines of the Japan-ASEAN chiefs' meeting, the JPO also held bilateral meetings with intellectual property agencies in Cambodia, Laos, the Philippines and Vietnam, and confirmed the continued advancement of bilateral cooperation. The JPO is satisfied with its ability to continue promoting further international cooperation with overseas IP agencies.

Beijing Fineland IP Firm Becomes the Agency of the Case of Review of“LIVTHING”Trademark Rejection and Successfully Prote...
21/09/2022

Beijing Fineland IP Firm Becomes the Agency of the Case of Review of“LIVTHING”Trademark Rejection and Successfully Protects Rights.

The applicant, Deco Electric Machinery Co., Ltd., refused to accept the trademark rejection decision issued by the CNIPA, entrusted Beijing Fineland IP Firm to apply for the rejection review to the CNIPA in accordance with the law, and finally succeeded in defending its rights.

The application for the trademark in this case is the joint protection of the applicant’s series of trademarks. The applicant has a strong sense of intellectual property protection, and has registered trademarks such as "" and " " on similar goods or services. The application for the trademark registration is completely for the protection purpose of the applicant in good faith.

In the case, the applicant is different from each obligee of the cited trademarks in the attributes of the industry. The application for the trademark and each cited trademark are all registered in categories 35. In categories 35 and actual usage, the application for the trademark and the cited trademark must be combined with their main industry. In the meantime, the relevant public can come into contact with the brands which is scarcely possible. Thus, it is impossible to cause consumer confusion and mistakes completely .

The graphic parts of the cited trademark 1-2 in this case are basically the same, but they have been successfully registered and coexisted for many years in similar service items of categories 35, which fully proves that this case and the application for the trademark with significant differences from the cited trademarks should be entirely given preliminary examination and publication.

The distinctive part of the application for the trademark is obviously different from that of the cited trademark 1-3, and the relevant public can distinguish the four trademarks according to their respective distinctive part. The application for the trademark and the cited trademark 1-3 contain a clear word part, so the word part shall be a prominent part of the application for the trademark and the cited trademark 1-3, including "LivThing", "学联派客", "粘粘网", and "跨十袋".

In a combination trademark of graphic and word, the graphic part is generally related to the word part, and the graphic part is generally a specific description of the abstract word. The application for the trademark is composed of "LivThing及图", and "LivThing" is an innovative word after the combination of "Liv" and "Thing". The overall meaning of the application for the trademark points to "innovative development will bring new hope and future". The cited trademark 1 is composed of "学联派客及图", and the overall meaning points to "unite to form an alliance, learn together and make common progress", which conveys the idea of win-win cooperation. The citation trademark 2 is composed of "粘粘网及图", and the overall meaning points to the "establishment of a win-win website with consumers", which conveys that the right holder of the citation trademark 2 adheres to the road of mutual benefit and win-win with consumers. Citation Trademark 3 is composed of "跨十袋KUA SHI DAI及图", with the overall meaning pointing to "cross-era cooperation".

In terms of word design, the application for the trademark and the cited trademark 1-3 were designed in a completely different font, so that the relevant public can form a completely different visual impression when recognizing the application for the trademark and the cited trademark 1-3; In terms of graphic design, the application for the trademark and the cited trademark 1-3 have different compositions and meanings. Therefore, the application for the trademark and the cited trademark 1-3 will not cause confusion and misrecognition by the relevant public at all, and should not be identified as similar.

Citation Trademark 1 is not actually used and does not exert its due value. The obligee of the cited trademark 2, "Guangzhou Zero Dream Zero Network Technology Co., Ltd.", was showed in the abnormal list of operation by the Industry and Commerce Bureau because it could not be contacted through the registered residence or business place in 2019. It can be seen that the obligee of the cited trademark 2 has no normal operation, and impossibly makes cited trademark 2 put into the market for usage.

In accordance with the provisions of Article 28 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, the CNIPA has decided as follows: the registration application of the application for trademark on the services under review shall be given preliminary examination and approval.

13/09/2022

Beijing Fineland IP Firm Becomes the Agency of the Case of Review of“中用集团 大道中用 赢造未来 CENTREYEA GROUP”Trademark Rejection and Successfully Protects Rights.

The applicant, Fujian Centreyea Group Co., Ltd., refused to accept the trademark rejection decision issued by the CNIPA, entrusted Beijing Fineland IP Firm to apply for the rejection review to the CNIPA in accordance with the law, and finally succeeded in defending its rights.
The prominent part of a trademark refers to playing a dominant role in the overall composition of the trademark, determining the overall image of the trademark and playing a major role in the identification of the trademark. In practice, since the graphic part cannot be pronounced, consumers can directly call the relevant trademark in the word part when identifying the combination of word and graphic trademarks.
The application for the trademark is a combination of word and graphic trademark, and the Chinese characters "中用集团 大道中用 赢造未来" are the prominent part of the whole trademark, so the trademark is called as "中用集团 大道中用 赢造未来". The cited trademark is a significant part of the whole trademark, and in view of the graphics is not convenient to read, but according to the general trade customs and business practices, for no obvious call graphics trademark, usually by the registrant enterprise trade name to call. Therefore, the cited trademark takes registrant " Hangzhou Wrench Network Technology Co., Ltd." enterprise name "扳手" for the call.
The application for the trademark is obviously different from the cited trademark in overall appearance. The application for the trademark is a combination of word and graphic, and the Chinese characters are written in boldface, which integrates modern, technological and sporting fashion sense. The figure as a whole depicts an inverted heart, representing the center. The figure part is only the cosmetic element of the trademark, not the decisive role. The cited trademark is a graphic trademark. The overall appearance is similar to the small house in the cartoon design. The overall design of the trademark is full of children's fun.
The application for the trademark is obviously different from the cited trademark in meaning. The "中用集团" in the logo of the application for the trademark is taken from the applicant's enterprise name, and the whole trademark points to the applicant, representing the applicant's enterprise purpose of taking consumers as the core, winning the favor of customers, winning the future, and mutual benefit and win-win. The cited trademark is a picture of a house and has no specific meaning.
The applicant and the cited trademark registrant have obvious differences in industry attributes. The applicant mainly engages in property management and real estate economic services. The cited trademark registrant mainly engages in technology development and so on.
There are obvious differences between the application for the trademark and the cited trademark in the salient part, meaning, appearance and call. The application registration of the application for the trademark is completely in line with the provisions of the Guide for Trademark Examination and Trial, and does not violate the provision of Article 30 of the Trademark Law. The application shall be preliminarily approved and announced. In accordance with the provision of Article 28 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, the CNIPA has decided as follows: The registration application of the application for the trademark in the reexamination service shall be initially examined and approved.

05/09/2022

Beijing Fineland IP Firm succeeded in safeguarding its rights during review of refused trademark on behalf of“MALDIRE”.

The applicant, Pittori Zambello, was unwilling to accept the refused trademark decision issued by CNIPA, and entrusted Beijing Fineland IP Firm to file request for review of refused trademark with CNIPA, and finally succeeded in safeguarding its rights.

26/08/2022

Notes on registration of single word trademarks

1.It shall not violate the absolute prohibitive provisions of the law, for example, it cannot have bad influence, cannot damage socialist morals and customs, cannot damage the national and religious affections, and it cannot be deceptive. This article, whether register single word trademark, or multi-word trademark, should be strictly followed.
2.The single word can be a noun, verb, adjective, preposition, etc., but it should have a distinctive feature, which should be comprehensively judged in combination with the goods that the trademark designated on.
3.Before the registration of the single word trademark, the trademark approximate query is needed. Generally speaking, the single-word trademarks and its overlapping trademarks are easy to be identified as similar trademarks; The approximate judgment of the single word trademark and multi-word trademark should consider whether they constitute different meanings.

17/08/2022

What materials are needed to apply for a patent?

Patent refers to three forms of invention and creation that can be protected by Patent Law: invention patent, utility model patent and design patent. Different types of patents have different requirements for filing documents. Here's a brief overview of different types of patent applications and what you need to submit.
1.Documents required for the invention patent or utility model patent: To apply for invention patent or utility model patent, documents such as a request, a description and its abstract, and a claim shall be submitted.
2.Documents required for the design patent: The patent application for design is somewhat different from the application for the other two patents in that it includes documents such as an application, pictures or photographs of the design, and a brief description of the design, etc.
If prefers a higher rate of patent authorization, an easier subsequent management, and avoidance too many problems and loopholes during the patent application process, the applicant can contact professional patent agency to handle the patent issue. Beijing Fineland IP Firm engaged in intellectual property field more than 10 years and has rich representing experience in the patent field, and can help to es**rt your intellectual property.

09/08/2022

Can the patent application document be amended after submitted?

After the patent application document is submitted, the patent application document can also be modified, but it needs to be modified according to the regulations. The procedure for modifying a request in a patent application document is different from that for modifying a specification or a claim.
Article 33 of the Patent Law An applicant can amend his or her application document for a patent; however, the amendment to the application for a patent for invention or utility model can not go beyond the scope contained in the original specification and claims, and the amendment to the application for a patent for design can not go beyond the scope indicated in the original drawing or photograph.

Address

1104-2, Tianchuang Science Plaza, No. 8 Caihefang Road, Haidian District
Beijing
100738

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Fineland IP posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category