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’s successful application for reviewing the decision on refusal of trademark MOCCA for registration

时间:2014-01-16
 The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) issued on March 23, 2012 the Decision on Reviewing the Rejected Application of Trademark MOCCA (No. 7111713) to decide that the preliminary reconsideration is started for the said trademark. It’s the fourth time that our company, as an agency, has won the trademark reconsideration case for our client, and the enterprise’s major business involves the commodities that fall into the category of 16, 18 and 25.
    When the Notice on Rejecting the Application for Trademark was issued, China Trademark Office (CTMO) quoted two trademark cases, that is, MOSCA No. G593982 and MOCHA No.6721787 as the evidences and decided that the prospective trademark bears resemblance to the trademark letters MOCCA. When we submitted the written reasons for reconsideration to TRAB, we started with the illustration of the enterprise’s independent brand, focused on an examination of the difference between the rejected trademark and the quoted trademarks, and stated that the public confusion wouldn’t be generated based on the realistic reputation. Finally, TRAB accepted the applicant’s opinion and decided that the rejected trademark, as an independent application related to the designated commodities, wouldn’t produce any preemptive right that challenges the existing trademarks.
    Since the rejected trademark adopts the arbitrary symbols and the primary meaning can be used as the basis of identification, the form and the spelling effects have served as a critical basis of identification. Obviously, nothing can prove that the rejected trademark uses the letters similar to those two quoted trademarks. Besides, the standardized typeface of rejected trademark contributes to more noticeable difference. If similarity is accepted, it’s a less-than-prudent decision. In recent years, the trademark applicant, as a Hong Kong-based garment entity, has managed a large-scale access to the market in Chinese mainland. It has established the sales counter in the large shopping malls like Zhongyou in Xidan, Beijing. We can understand that the brand MOCCA has made considerable investments in market. Therefore, the successful application for reviewing the rejected trademark MOCCA in Type 16 means a lot to the brand owner.