Address: 1107, B2, Long-Range World Building, No 18 Suzhou Street, Haidian District, Beijing, 100080, China
Postcode: 100089
Telephone: (8610)68473908 88518458 88518575 88516136 82609417
Facsimile: (8610)68473908转802 
Website: www.suthink.com
Email: [email protected]
News center

SUTHINK successfully represents its client in dealing with trademark opposition of “曼秀雷敦MENTHOLATUM”

时间:2012-11-23
    CTMO issued the Adjudication on Trademark Opposition of “曼秀雷敦MENTHOLATUM” on July 7, 2012 and ruled in accordance with Article 10.1.8 and Article 33 of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China that the argument of the opponent should be supported, while the application for the registration of the trademark “曼秀雷敦MENTHOLATUM” (No. 5678873) should be rejected.
    The trademark applicant submitted an application on Oct. 24, 2006 for registration of the disputed trademark“曼秀雷敦MENTHOLATUM” (No. 5678873) for the products in Class 5 of the Table for Distinction of Similar Products and Services including, but not limited to, air fresher, air purifier, cleanser, deodorants (other than for personal use), chemical mildew cleaning agent, refrigerator deodorizer and toilet deodorizer. The disputed trademark consists of Chinese characters “曼秀雷敦” and English letters “MENTHOLATUM”, both of which come from the main content of the trademark series of the opponent.
    After the examination of the disputed trademark, CTMO held that the trademark “曼秀雷敦” referred to by the opponent is a trademark having been registered and used by MENTHOLATUM Company on ointment and other related products. This trademark is popular to some extent in China. The Chinese characters “曼秀雷敦” in the disputed trademark “曼秀雷敦MANXIULEIDUN” is identical with the trademark referred to by the opponent and constitutes reproduction of the later. Using the disputed trademark on air fresher will mislead the public and cause negative social effects.   Although the disputed trademark deliberately avoided the similarity of products, a negative social effect of confutation or mistakes in recognition of products by related public is prone to occur. Therefore, CTMO ruled in accordance with Article 10.1.8 of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China to reject the registration of the disputed trademark.
    This case is another example for CTMO to break through the Table for Distinction of Similar Products and Services and renders a particular protection to, and confirms the high popularity of, the main trademark “曼秀雷敦”of the opponent. Meanwhile, it also reflects the current trend of more comprehensive trademark examination that has feasibly and effectively contained illegal counterfeiters to take a chance.