Author | Intellectual Property
(This article is a manuscript that Intellectual Property has obtained the exclusive first authorization. Reprinting requires the author's consent and the source of the article is indicated in a prominent position.)
(2197 words in this article, it takes about 4 minutes to read)
A child has two fathers, and these two fathers have been fighting for more than 10 years for the "custody of this child". The Korean father has gone through a cycle of revocation of the British father's "BOY and Picture" trademark because he believes that the British father has not been used for three consecutive years. The Supreme People's Court made a retrial ruling at the end of 2017 to reject the retrial request of South Korea's father in relation to the administrative dispute over the trademark dispute of "BOY and Picture" under the name of South Korea's father. Subsequently, the British father issued a statement, saying with confidence that the judicial procedures for the "BOY and Picture" trademark dispute case under the name of the Korean father have been completely terminated, and the latter no longer enjoys any exclusive trademark rights for the trademark. Does the ending seem to be as British father said? People with a little legal knowledge may see through it at a glance, but this is not the case.
(one picture to understand the litigation process of two fathers)
dust has not been settled, and the statement should not be issued randomly
This British father is located in the Angelo Associate Company in the UK, and the legal representative is Cai Weiwen. The Korean father is Baoai Trading (Qingdao) Co., Ltd., and the legal representative is Korean Jin Jiaqi. The two fathers' entanglement is not complicated. The Korean father first filed an application for revocation against the "graphic" trademark under the name of the British father on the grounds that it has not been used for three consecutive years; the British father then filed an application for revocation on the grounds that the "graphic + BOY" trademark under the name of the Korean father and the "graphic" trademark that was proposed to "revoke three" constituted an approximate trademark on similar products.
However, the "graphic + BOY" trademark dispute case under the name of South Korea's father was the first to complete a round of administrative litigation. The administrative litigation for the revocation and review of the "graphic" trademark under the name of the British father is still under the second instance trial. The "graphic" trademark under the name of the British father is a cited trademark in the administrative litigation of the "graphic + BOY" trademark under the name of the Korean father. Whether its rights are stable will ultimately affect the trademark under the name of the former. The British father hastily issued the above statement at this time, either because he did not read the ruling of the Supreme People's Court carefully or because he was selectively "blind".
In the above ruling, the Supreme People's Court wrote in black and white: "If the Beijing Higher People's Court ruled in case (2017) Jingxing Zhong 4776, the judgment upheld the administrative judgment of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court on the revocation of the cited trademark (2016) Jingxing 73 Chu 483, then Baoai Company and Jin Jiaqi may apply to this court for retrial within six months from the date of knowing or should knowing the judgment."
If the British father has not carefully read the ruling of the Supreme People's Court, then the editor Baidu has provided the provisions of Article 24, Paragraph 1 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Use of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China" in accordance with the provisions of Article 24, Paragraph 1 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Use of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China" in accordance with the provisions of Article 24, Paragraph 1 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Use of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China" in accordance with the provisions of Article 24, Paragraph 1 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Use of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China" in accordance with the provisions of Article 24, Paragraph 1 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Use of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China" in accordance with the provisions of Article 24, Paragraph 1 of the British father, and the British father does not need to thank him if he raises his hands.
"Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Use of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China"
Article 24 The parties shall apply for retrial to the higher-level people's court, and shall submit it within six months after the judgment, ruling or mediation document takes effect. If any of the following circumstances occurs, it shall be submitted within six months from the date of knowing or should have known:
(I) There is new evidence that is sufficient to overturn the original judgment and ruling;
As long as the "graphic" trademark in the name of the British father is revoked and reviewed, the second instance final judgment of the administrative litigation determined that the "graphic" trademark has not been used for three consecutive years and is revoked, the "graphic" trademark in the name of the British father will no longer become an obstacle to the "graphic + BOY" trademark in the name of the Korean father. The second-instance judgment is new evidence, which is enough to overturn the previous second-instance judgment of the "graphic + BOY" trademark and restart the retrial procedure.
So, what causes the British father to generalize in his statement? It makes people have to suspect that he deliberately avoided relevant important information.This so-called judicial process has been completely terminated, and it is really hard to withstand the test of the law. Before the case was settled, an irresponsible statement was issued impatiently, which was a distortion of the ruling of the Supreme People's Court.
Food meals can be eaten randomly, sons should not recognize
As we all know, building a brand is like raising a child, it is time-consuming and laborious, and it also costs a lot of money. When this child finally grew up and gave back to society, another person suddenly jumped out and said, "The child is mine, it has nothing to do with you." No one wants to take other people's children as all.
According to existing information, the "BOYLONDON" series trademark was originally applied for registration by the British father, but after only 21 days in his hand, in July 1995, the British father packaged the "BOYLONDON" series trademark and "adopted" the Korean father in a package.
After that, for nearly 10 years, the two fathers were in peace. Until in 2004, a person named Wu Zheyuan started a "BOYLONDON" son-in-law with his Korean father in South Korea in the name of his British father.
Wu Zheyuan, who is the right to take back the "BOYLONDON" series trademark? During the trial of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court on the Eagle Graphics trademark under the name of the British father, Wu Zheyuan personally admitted that he had resigned from the British father as early as 1998 and returned to Hong Kong, China. According to the website of the British company registration authority, the British father's Angelo Associate Company has been closed since the 1990s.
After that, both fathers expanded their business territory to China and successively applied for registration of relevant trademarks in China.
So far, the trademark dispute between the two fathers extended to China. The British father said that the Korean father maliciously registered his pre-registered trademark and tried to seize his market in China. The Korean father said that the British father intended to seize his trademark rights and spread false facts to his nearly 400 dealerships, hindering his normal operations.
who is right and wrong is still unknown. The BOY LONDON brand, which has many celebrities as its fans, has stimulated the purchasing desire of teenagers around the world. Faced with this huge market, both fathers want to be included, but in the end, who can "love a son" still needs to stop the disputes. It is too early to claim his son confidently without the legal procedures.
"Ten thousand years are too long, we have to seize the day." As for this series of disputes, there is no need to wait for "ten thousand years", nor do we have to "fight for the day". The day when the right and wrong are revealed is not far away. However, on the day the truth is revealed, there are many legal issues worth discussing. For example, the trademark involved in the case of the British father was eventually revoked. Under the existing legal framework, can the Korean father regain his exclusive right to the trademark, and how should he take remedial measures to safeguard his legitimate rights? When one of the two fathers enjoys the exclusive right to the relevant registered trademark, does the other party continue to use the relevant trademark constitute a trademark right? How should such behavior be defined?
So, what lies between the two fathers is not only the trademark confirmation issue, but also the relief and infringement issue. I believe that after nearly 10 years of dispute, the dispute will soon usher in the day when the dust settles. But who will be able to laugh to the end in the end, let’s wait and see.
Intellectual Property is an original new media platform dedicated to "aggorizing intellectual property solutions for innovation". To understand innovation in the field of science and technology and related intellectual property issues, please pay attention to the WeChat public account of Intellectual Property and the official Weibo "Intellectual Property". You can also log in to www.zhichanli.com to check more exciting content.
