您现在的位置是:主页 > 金沙国际app下载 > 鮑師傅同名煩惱期待最終化解

鮑師傅同名煩惱期待最終化解
2020-01-11 18:04   来源:  www.alemdojogo.com   评论:0 点击:

鮑師傅同名煩惱期待最終化解因不服原国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会(下称原商标评审委员会)就鲍才胜

  因不服原国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会(下称原商标评审委员会)就鲍才胜餐饮管理有限公司(下称鲍才胜公司)针对17899096号“鲍师傅BaoShiFu及图”商标(下称诉争商标)提起的无效宣告请求所作出的裁定(下称被诉裁定),北京易尚餐饮管理有限公司(下称易尚公司)提起行政诉讼。近日,北京知识产权法院就该案作出一审判决,认定被诉裁定事实清楚,适用法律正确,驳回易尚公司的全部诉讼请求。在被诉裁定中,原商标评审委员会认定核定使用在第43类餐厅等服务上的诉争商标与申请人鲍才胜公司所持有的核定使用在第30类糕点、面包等商品上的第12484211号“鲍师傅”商标(下称引证商标)构成近似。据此,原商标评审委员会宣告诉争商标无效。

Beijing Yi Shang Food and Beverage Management Co., Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as Yi Shang Company) filed an administrative lawsuit against the decision made by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the former Trademark Review and Adjudication Board) against the request for invalidation made by Bao Caisheng Food and Beverage Management Co., Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as Bao Caisheng Company) against the trademark No.17899096\" Bao Shi Bao Bao Bao Shi Fu and Tu \"(hereinafter referred to as the trademark of dispute). Recently, the beijing intellectual property court on the case issued a first instance judgment, found that the ruling is clear, the application of the law is correct, the rejection of all claims by yi shang company. In the ruling, the original Trademark Review and Adjudication Board found that the trademark \"Bao Shifu \"(hereinafter referred to as the cited trademark), approved for use in services such as restaurants of category 43, and the trademark\" Bao Shifu \"(hereinafter referred to as the cited trademark), approved for use in goods such as pastry and bread in category 30, were similar to those held by the applicant, Bao Caisheng Company. Accordingly, the original Trademark Review and Adjudication Board declared the disputed trademark invalid.

  2015年9月15日,鲍某兵就诉争商标提出注册申请,后经核准分别使用在第32类“啤酒”等商品以及第43类餐厅、咖啡馆等服务上。随后,该商标被核准转让至易尚公司。原商标评审委员会经审理查明,易尚公司还申请注册了100余件商标,包括“鲍才胜”“鲍师傅”“鲍师傅小贝”等多件商标。

On September 15,2015, Bao filed an application for registration against the trademark, which was approved for use in goods such as Class 32\" Beer \"and in services such as Class 43 restaurants and cafes. Subsequently, the trademark was approved for transfer to IBS. The original Trademark Review and Adjudication Board found that the company also applied to register more than 100 trademarks, including \"Bao Caisheng \",\" Bao Shifu \",\" Bao Shifu Xiaobei\" and many other trademarks.

  针对诉争商标,鲍才胜公司2018年2月向原商标评审委员会提出无效宣告请求。鲍才胜公司称,引证商标经过长期大量的宣传和使用,在诉争商标注册申请日之前已具有较高的知名度和影响力,诉争商标构成对引证商标的复制、摹仿,易误导公众,致使申请人的利益可能受到损害;诉争商标的申请注册构成以不正当手段抢注申请人在先使用并具有一定影响的“鲍师傅”商标等。

In response to the lawsuit against the trademark, Bao Caisheng Company filed a request for invalidation to the original Trademark Review Committee in February 2018. Bao Caisheng said that after a long period of publicity and use of the cited trademark, it had a high popularity and influence before the date of application for trademark registration, and that the application for trademark protection constituted a copy or imitation of the cited trademark, which could easily mislead the public and cause the interests of the applicant to be harmed.

  对此,易尚公司辩称,诉争商标的申请注册并未摹仿、抄袭申请人商标,并未侵犯申请人的利益;诉争商标指定使用的服务与引证商标核定使用的商品不属于类似服务或商品;诉争商标经过广泛的宣传和使用,已具有较强的显著性和较高的知名度,在实际使用中不会造成消费者产生误认。

In response, Yi Shang argued that the application for trademark registration did not copy or copy the trademark of the applicant and did not infringe upon the interests of the applicant; that the services for the specified use of the trademark and the goods for the approved use of the cited trademark did not belong to similar services or commodities; and that the application for trademark, after extensive publicity and use, had a strong significance and high popularity and would not cause consumers to misunderstand in its actual use.

  原商标评审委员会经审查认为,该案件的争议焦点如下:诉争商标与引证商标是否构成商标法第三十条所指使用在类似商品或服务上的近似商标之情形等。

After examination, the original Trademark Review and Adjudication Board concluded that the dispute in this case was as follows: whether the case of trademark dispute and the cited trademark constituted an approximate trademark used in similar goods or services as referred to in Article 30 of the Trademark Law, etc.

  对此,原商标评审委员会经审理认为,商标近似的判定,首先应认定指定使用的商品或服务是否属于同一种或者类似商品或服务;其次应从商标本身的形、音、义和整体表现形式等方面,以相关公众的一般注意力为标准,并采取整体观察与对比主要部分的方法,判断商标标志本身是否相同或者近似;同时,还应当考虑到商标的显著性、知名度和实际使用之情形。商品和服务类似是指商品和服务之间存在特定联系,容易使相关公众混淆。

In this connection, the original Trademark Review and Adjudication Board considered that the determination of trademark approximation should first determine whether the goods or services designated for use belong to the same or similar goods or services; secondly, it should take the general attention of the relevant public as the criterion in respect of the shape, sound, meaning and overall expression of the trademark itself, and adopt the method of overall observation and comparison of the main parts to determine whether the trademark logo itself is the same or similar; at the same time, it should also take into account the salience, visibility and actual use of the trademark. Similarly, goods and services refer to the existence of specific links between goods and services, which can easily confuse the relevant public.

  该案中,诉争商标的显著部分为中文文字“鲍师傅”,与引证商标“鲍师傅”在文字构成、呼叫、含义等方面相同,两商标构成近似商标;诉争商标核定使用的“餐厅”等服务与引证商标核定使用的“糕点、面包”等商品在销售渠道、销售场所及消费对象等方面相近或者密切相关,属于类似或者密切关联商品或服务;加之鲍才胜公司提交的相关证据可以证明引证商标经申请人宣传使用在“糕点”等商品上已具有一定的知名度,诉争商标与引证商标若共存于上述类似或者密切关联商品或服务上,易造成相关公众对商品或服务来源产生混淆和误认。

In this case, the prominent part of the trademark claim is the Chinese language \"Master Bao \", which is similar to the cited trademark\" Bao Shifu \"in terms of composition, call and meaning, and the two trademarks constitute an approximate trademark; the services such as\" restaurant \"for the approved use of the disputed trademark and\" pastry and bread \"for the approved use of the cited trademark are similar or closely related in terms of sales channels, places of sale and objects of consumption, and are similar or closely related goods or services; and the relevant evidence submitted by Bao Caisheng Company can prove that the cited trademark has a certain popularity in the use of\" pastry \"and other goods through publicity, and that the cited trademark and the cited trademark and the cited trademark are similar or closely related to the above-mentioned goods or services, resulting in confusion and misunderstanding of the sources of goods or services.

  易尚公司诉称,诉争商标与引证商标在整体构成、含义和外观上可以相互区分,未构成近似商标;诉争商标核定使用在第43类餐厅等服务,与核定使用在第30类糕点、面包等商品上的引证商标在服务内容、方式、对象等方面存在差异;其申请注册诉争商标是商业需要,实践中未造成相关公众的混淆误认。

The company claimed that the sue trademark and the cited trademark could be distinguished from each other in overall composition, meaning and appearance, and did not constitute an approximate trademark; the sue trademark was approved for use in services such as the 43rd type restaurant, and there were differences in service content, manner and object between the cited trademark and the approved use in goods such as the 30th type of pastry and bread; and its application for registration of the sue trademark was a commercial need, which did not cause confusion in practice.

  北京知识产权法院经审理认为,诉争商标为图文组合商标,由汉字“鲍师傅”、汉语拼音“BaoShiFu”及鲍某兵的头像构成,其显著识别部分为汉字“鲍师傅”;引证商标为纯文字商标,由汉字“鲍师傅”构成,诉争商标的显著识别部分与引证商标完全相同,构成近似商标。此外,诉争商标核定使用的第43类餐厅等服务与引证商标核定使用的第30类糕点、面包等商品,在日常实践中具有较为密切的关联性。考虑到鲍才胜公司提交到证据能够证明引证商标经使用在糕点、蛋糕等商品上已具有一定的知名度,故如果在上述服务和商品上使用相同或近似的商标,容易导致相关公众认为上述服务的提供者亦为上述商品的提供者或者认为两者之间存在某种特定联系,从而导致相关消费者的混淆误认。

After hearing the case, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court concluded that the trademark of the lawsuit was a combination of Chinese and Chinese characters, composed of the heads of the Chinese characters \"Master Bao \", the Chinese phonetic alphabet\" BaoShi Fu \"and Bao Mingbing, whose distinctive recognition part was\" Master Bao \". In addition, services such as the 43rd type of restaurant and the 30th type of pastry and bread used in the approved use of the cited trademark are closely related in daily practice. Considering that the evidence submitted by Bao Caisheng Company can prove that the cited trademark has a certain popularity in the use of goods such as pastry and cake, if the same or similar trademark is used in the above-mentioned services and goods, it is easy to cause the relevant public to believe that the provider of the above-mentioned services is also the provider of the above-mentioned goods or that there is a certain connection between the two, thus leading to the confusion of the relevant consumers.

  就在该案作出判决不久,北京知识产权法院就易尚公司提出的另一起行政纠纷案作出一审判决,认定核定使用在第32类饮料等商品上的17899060号“鲍师傅BaoShiFu及图”商标与引证商标构成近似,维持了原商标评审委员会此前作出的无效宣告请求。

Shortly after the decision was handed down in the case, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court issued a first instance judgment in another administrative dispute case filed by Yi Shang Company, finding that the trademark \"Bao Master Bao Bao Bao Shi Fu and Tu \", which was approved for use in category 32 drinks and other commodities, approximated the composition of the cited trademark and upheld the previous request of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board for invalidation.

  据鲍才胜公司创始人鲍才胜介绍,自2017年底至今,鲍才胜公司已经在全国18个地区(含淘宝平台店)针对213个门店提起商标侵权诉讼,其中涉及易尚店公司等门店有163家。上述213个诉讼案件中已经有129件已经通过判决、调解、和解等方式结案,案件结果均是被告门店立即停止使用“鲍师傅”商标销售糕点并赔偿鲍才胜公司经济损失,整体判决、和调解金额已达到618万元。鲍才胜透露,在维权初期,北京地区“山寨”鲍师傅糕点店铺数量一度超过300家,如今已不足30家。(本报记者姜旭)

Since the end of 2017, Bao has filed trademark infringement lawsuits against 213 stores in 18 regions of the country (including Taobao platform stores), including 163 involving stores such as Yi Shangdian, according to Bao Caisheng, founder of Bao Caisheng. Of the 213 cases,129 have been settled by judgement, mediation and settlement.The result of all the cases was that the defendant's store immediately stopped using the \"Bao Shifu\" trademark to sell cakes and compensate Bao Caisheng for the company's economic losses. Bao revealed that in the early days of the rights, beijing area \"shanzhai\" bao master pastry shop once more than 300, now less than 30. (Reporter Jiang Xu)


相关热词搜索:

上一篇:大学校园迎来2020年第一场雪哪抹景色最让你心动
下一篇:没有了

分享到: