One is a well-known French tire manufacturer, and the other is an Anhui enterprise engaged in the acquisition of Chinese medicinal materials and agricultural and sideline products. The two sides have launched a fierce dispute over a trademark of "Meiqilin" registered on beverage products.

A few days ago, the dispute between the two parties has made new progress. The Beijing High People’s Court finally supported the appeal of the French Michelin Group Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Michelin). The Court determined that prior to Sihai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Sihai Pharmaceutical Company) in Bozhou City, Anhui Province applied for the registration of the No. 12963409 "Meiqilin" trademark (hereinafter referred to as the disputed trademark), the Michelin Company's No. 136402 "MICHELIN" trademark (hereinafter referred to as the cited trademark 1) has became a well-known trademark on tire products. The registration and use of thedisputed trademark broke the close connection between the "MICHELIN" trademark and the tire products provided by Michelin, and weakened the distinctiveness of the cited trademark 1, which may damage the interests of Michelin. Accordingly, the original ruling on maintaining the disputed trademark from the State Administration for Industry and Commerce Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (hereinafter referred to as the original Trademark Review and Adjudication Board) was cancelled.

It is understood that Sihai Pharmaceutical Company was registered and established in 2002, mainly running the acquisition of Chinese medicinal materials and agricultural and sideline products. On July 23, 2013, the company submitted an application for the registration of the disputed trademark, which was approved for registration on May 14, 2016 after the opposition procedure. It was approved for use in the 32nd category of products such as beer, juice, soda, and soy drinks etc.

On April 25, 2017, Michelin Company filed an invalidation request with the original Trademark Review and Adjudication Board for the trademark in dispute, claiming that before the application for registration of the trademark in dispute, the popularity of the cited trademark 1 held by them and No. 519749 "Michelin" trademark (hereinafter referred to as cited trademark 2) of tire products has reached the level of well-known trademarks. The disputed trademark is the duplication or imitation of the two cited trademarks, which may easily cause the relevant public to confuse the source of the goods and dilute the significance of the first and second cited trademarks, which has caused damage to its interests.

After the trial, the original Trademark Review and Adjudication Board found that the evidence submitted by Michelin was not sufficient to prove that the citing trademark 1 and 2 was well known to the relevant public in China before the registration of the disputed trademark. And the disputed trademark and the two cited trademarks’ approved goods have significant differences in functions, uses, etc., and are comparatively weak in relevance. The registration and use of the disputed trademark will not lead to consumers to misunderstand the source of the goods, and the disputed trademark shall be maintained accordingly.

Michelin dissatisfied with the above ruling, and then filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, claiming that the two cited trademarks had reached the level of well-known trademarks on tire products before the trademark application for registration in the dispute. The disputed trademark was the reproduction and imitation of the two cited trademarks; the "Michelin Guide" produced by the company is a guide for restaurants and belongs to the food industry. In addition, the two cited trademarks are very well-known and cover the food industry. The disputed trademark is registered and used on beverages, and it is easy for the relevant public to associate it with the two cited trademarks, which leads to confusion about the origin of the goods by the relevant public, and also dilutes the distinctiveness of the two cited trademarks, resulting in damage to their well-known trademark rights.

China National Intellectual Property Administration argued that the evidence submitted by Michelin was not sufficient to prove that the popularity of the two cited trademarks reached the level of well-known trademarks before the registration of the disputed trademark, and the disputed trademark was not a copy or imitation of the two cited trademarks. There are significant differences between the disputed trademark and the approved use of the two cited trademarks in terms of functions, uses, sales channels, and industries involved. They are weakly related to each other, and coexistence will not cause consumers to misidentify.

The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the Chinese translation of the disputed trademark and the Chinese translation of the cited trademark 1 and the logo of the cited trademark 2 have obvious differences in text composition, and the relevant public will not recognize “Mechelin” as "MICHELIN", and it will not be mistakenly recognized that "Meiqilin" and "MICHELIN" trademark have any connection. At the same time, there are significant differences in functions and uses between the disputed trademark and the approved use of the two cited trademarks. The coexistence in the market will not mislead the public and cause damage to the interests of Michelin, and there is no such possibility as diminishing the distinctiveness of the cited trademark. In summary, the court's first-instance judgment rejected Michelin's claims.


Source: China IP Today