"Fairy King" Zheng Yuanjie has filed a lawsuit against the "Pipilu" trademark

　　Beijing News (Reporter Wang Wei) "Fairy King" Zheng Yuanjie sued the State Intellectual Property Office to the court in the Pipilu trademark case. Today (June 10), President Yi Jun of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court on file told the Beijing News reporter that the case has been formally filed and has now been handed over to a professional trial team for further hearing.

"Pipilu" trademark dispute for 10 years, several times reversed

　　The case materials show that in 2010, a trademark agency company commissioned by Zheng Yuanjie, the "Fairy King", discovered that the "Pipilu" trademark was applied for registration on food products in Chengdu, Sichuan. During this period, some media reported that Zheng Yuanjie filed an objection to the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, which was in charge of trademark registration at the time, and applied for not registering the disputed trademark, but was rejected.

　　"Applicant Zou Mou submitted an application for registration on February 13, 2009, and was approved for registration on September 28, 2010." Introduction of President Yi Jun of Beijing Intellectual Property Court, Beijing Pipilu General Mobilization Cultural Technology Co., Ltd. (referred to as "Pipi Lu Company") filed a declaration of invalidity in 2018 against the "Pipilu" trademark, on the grounds that the trademark violated Article 10, paragraph 1, paragraphs 7, 8 and 41 of the 2001 Trademark Law The provisions of the first paragraph of the article, namely, "is deceptive, and it is easy for the public to misrecognize the characteristics of the quality of goods or the place of origin" "harmful to the socialist moral fashion or have other adverse effects" "by deception or other unfair means registered".

　　On March 15, 2019, the State Intellectual Property Office ruled that the disputed trademark "Pipiru" violated the provisions of Article 10, paragraph 1, paragraph 8 of the 2001 Trademark Law, that is, "harmful to socialist morals" "Fashion or other adverse effects", but consider that the disputed trademark does not violate the provisions of Article 10, paragraph 1, paragraph 7 and Article 41, paragraph 1 of the Trademark Law, so the disputed trademark is declared invalid.

　　Zou Mou refused to accept the above ruling and filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court on May 30 last year on the grounds that the trademark dispute did not violate the provisions of Article 10, paragraph 1, paragraph 8 of the 2001 Trademark Law. Three people expressed their agreement with the State Intellectual Property Office.

　　On August 27 last year, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court made a first-instance judgment and found that the disputed trademark did not violate the provisions of Article 10, paragraph 1, paragraph 8 of the 2001 Trademark Law, so the judgment revoked the decision of the State Intellectual Property Office, and The State Intellectual Property Office was ordered to make a new decision. The State Intellectual Property Office refused to accept it and filed an appeal. The Beijing High Court made a second-instance judgment on February 26 this year and upheld the first-instance judgment.

　　On March 25 this year, the State Intellectual Property Office re-determined that the disputed trademark "Pipiru" did not violate the provisions of the aforementioned "Trademark Law" and maintained the disputed trademark.

Pipiru Company refused to accept the review ruling and sued the Bureau of Intellectual Property

　　Dissatisfied with the renewed decision of the State Intellectual Property Office, Pipiru filed a lawsuit in the Beijing Intellectual Property Court on the grounds that the “Pipiru” trademark involved violated Article 41, paragraph 1, of the above-mentioned Trademark Law , That is, “If a registered trademark violates the provisions of Articles 10, 11 and 12 of this Law, or is obtained by deception or other improper means, the Trademark Office shall revoke the registered trademark; other Units or individuals may request the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to decide to revoke the registered trademark." Pipiru requested the court to order the revocation of the above ruling and order the State Intellectual Property Office to make another ruling.

　　In a well-known trademark right case, the case is brought to court again, and the reasons for the prosecution are similar. Does it involve the repeated trial of a case? President Yi Jun said that at the filing stage, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court combined the two rulings made by the State Intellectual Property Office and the content of the two-level court judgments that the two-level court hearings were based on the claims of the parties. The dispute did not involve the issue of Article 41, paragraph 1, of the 2001 Trademark Law, so the court's first and second judgments did not comment on this issue.

　　President Yi Jun said that in this prosecution, Pipiru made it clear that the reason for the prosecution was that the trademark dispute violated the provisions of Article 41 of the 2001 Trademark Law, which was not a ruling against the court’s effective judgment The lawsuit filed can be filed first.

　　At present, the case has been handed over to a professional trial team.

　　Proofreading Chen Diyan