News of view of · of legal evening paper (reporter Zhou Wei) application is registered " drop drop arranges the windmill " out of court, limited company of development of wireless science and technology of Beijing Di Di is versed in to the country commercial firm politics manages total bureau brand to evaluate committee to mention reexamine, trade commissioner with " drop drop arranges the windmill " with adduce brand " drop drop family education " , " drop drop drop is printed " form approximate for, make the decision that rejects its reexamine request.
Di Di company refuses to obey, tell trade commissioner to the court, request cancel afore-mentioned decisions. On June 13 afternoon, this case makes public sessional cognizance lawfully in court of Beijing intellectual property.
Application is registered " drop drop arranges the windmill " brand by refute
Company of wireless science and technology of Beijing Di Di offers network intelligence to call a car the system through mobile Internet, its provide a service " drop drop goes out row " taxi, special, express, downwind car, generation is offerred to drive for the user in China wait to give a service in the round.
March 2015, di Di company is versed in to the country commercial firm politics manages bureau of total bureau brand to apply for to register the 16570638th " drop drop arranges the windmill " brand, brand bureau with the 16503463rd " drop drop family education " brand, the 16025983rd " printer of drop drop drop " brand serves as adduce brand, rejected " drop drop arranges the windmill " brand registers application in what serve trader partly.
Trade commissioner: Drop of drop of drop drop suitable windmill and drop drop family education, drop is printed form approximate
Di Di company refuses to obey the part of brand bureau overrules a decision, mention to trade commissioner reexamine. This company says, they are right " drop drop drop is printed " brand mentions demur application, and " drop drop family education " brand is in in rejecting reexamine order, the enrollment that requests to serve trader in entire review a case to reexamine brand so applies for to give preliminary and authorized.
Trade commissioner thinks via examining, "Drop drop arranges the windmill " brand is appointed use " commercial news is promoted for other " etc service and " drop drop family education " check and ratify uses " commercial government is auxiliary; Promote for other " service, with " drop drop drop is printed " check and ratify uses " concessionary management commercial government; Imports and exports acts as agent " wait for a service to form same plant or similar service.
In the meantime, "Drop drop arranges the windmill " in brand identify a part significantly " drop drop " with " drop drop family education " medium " drop drop " the character is formed identical, with " drop drop drop is printed " identify a part significantly " drop drop drips " the character is formed approximate.
So " drop drop arranges the windmill " brand and if two adduce brand are used jointly, in afore-mentioned same plant or on similar service make relevant public produces promiscuous mistake to serving origin easily, already formed trademark law thirtieth an indicating use is in same plant or the approximate brand on similar service. Reason rejected Di Di company to serve the application that go up in reexamine.
Di Di: "Drop drop arranges the windmill " famous degree tall as apparent as difference of adduce brand whole
Di Di company refuses to obey, accuse to the court the request sentences the decision that makes cancel trade commissioner, instruct its to make a decision afresh. On June 13 afternoon, this case is in Beijing intellectual property court is sessional.
Di Di company appeals to say, apply for brand and adduce brand whole stereo to become aware the difference on the effect is apparent above all, "Drop drop arranges the windmill " with " drop drop family education " , " drop drop drop is printed " form in the character, meaning of call means, brand and integral effect respect all exist to be distinguished significantly, what won't create customer is promiscuous with mistake. "Drop drop family education " and " drop drop drop is printed " include a Chinese character at the same time " drop drop " , but these brand are already concomitant on identical or similar service. The basis examines standard consistency, application brand also is not formed with two adduce brand approximate, should to enroll.
Next, "Drop drop family education " the everybody of brand is Beijing learn and consider limited company of educational science and technology; "Drop drop drop is printed " trademark holder is limited company of 7 science and technology of Shenzhen city, basically be engaged in civil 3D printing business. Di Di company and the business domain of two afore-mentioned companies are put in bigger difference, consumer is completely capable that the place according to 3 companies belongs to a domain, located district and those who purchase a service is personal experience etc will distinguish 3 brand.
Finally, di Di company and its correlation company are " drop drop arranges the windmill " , " drop drop " , " Di Di " the person that wait for the original creation of brand and use a person the earliest, and pass long-term, extensive use and conduct propaganda, "Drop drop arranges the windmill " brand already was obtained in China extremely Gao Zhi name is spent, establish corresponding relationship with this company. So, appeal to the promiscuous mistake that contends for brand and coexistence of two adduce brand to won't create relevant community.
Trade commissioner rejoins say, be appealed to to decide cognizance fact is clear, applicable law is correct, make a program lawful, request court rejects the appeal of a drop.
On front courtyard, had been based on its in view of Di Di company present " drop drop " wait for brand to be opposite " drop drop family education " brand mentions demur application, right " drop drop drop is printed " brand plans to mention invalid declare application, di Di company claims the termination of the application of cognizance.
This case was not adjudged on the court.
