Trademark Dispute Case No. 25544694: "BEIENS" Trademark

2025-11-19

【Basic Facts】
Claimant: Beinsch (Shenzhen) Technology Co., Ltd. (represented by our firm)
Respondent: Shanghai Yi Yue Trading Co., Ltd.
Main reasons of the claimant: The Respondent is a close associate of the claimant. The Respondent registered the disputed trademark with knowledge and malice, and infringed the claimant's prior domain name rights. The Respondent applied for registration of multiple trademarks, which are identical to the trademarks with strong distinctiveness and popularity of the claimant in similar goods, constituting "other improper means to obtain registration". The disputed trademark and the cited trademark are similar trademarks on similar goods.
Decision on the异议： Although the two trademarks are the same in English， the functions， uses， sales channels， and target consumers of the two trademarks are different. They do not belong to similar goods， and thus do not constitute similar trademarks used on similar goods. After investigation， apart from the disputed trademark in this case， the Respondent has also applied for multiple trademarks identical to the trademark "BEIENS" and "贝恩施" of the claimant in other types of goods， with the same text design and composition. This situation cannot be regarded as a coincidence. The Respondent has not provided a reasonable explanation for its actions. Therefore， our bureau believes that the Respondent's application for registration of the disputed trademark has obvious intent to copy or imitate others' trademarks， disrupting the normal trademark registration management order， and violating the legislative spirit of the Trademark Law that prohibits obtaining trademark registration by deception or other improper means. Therefore， the application for registration of the disputed trademark should not be approved.

【Typical Significance】
The respondent in this case applied for multiple trademarks that were exactly the same as the trademark text that the plaintiff had previously and which was highly original. They showed obvious intent to copy and imitate others' trademarks, which has disrupted the trademark registration order. Such behavior is necessary to be regulated. However, since this case occurred before the fourth amendment to the Trademark Law in 2019, the newly added clause "malicious trademark registration without the intention of use" in Article 4 of the 2019 Trademark Law could not be applied. Moreover, the first paragraph of Article 44 of the 2013 Trademark Law, due to the strict textual interpretation of the law, could only be applied in the invalidation procedure. Therefore, this case has certain legal application difficulties. At this time, in order to fill this loophole in individual cases, the Trademark Office drew on the legislative spirit of Article 44 of the Trademark Law regarding the prohibition of obtaining trademark registration by deceptive means or other improper means, and referred to and applied this case, which is conducive to regulating malicious registration situations and better protecting the rights and interests of the objecting party and public interests.

【Related Laws and Regulations】
Article 44 of the Trademark Law: If a registered trademark violates the provisions of Article 10, Article 11, or Article 12 of this Law, or was obtained through deceptive or other improper means, the Trademark Office shall declare the registered trademark invalid; other entities or individuals may request the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to declare the registered trademark invalid.

In 2016, the "Trademark Examination and Adjudication Standards" 2.2.1 The following situations fall under the category of "obtaining registration through other improper means" as defined in this article:
The applicant for the disputed trademark has applied to register multiple trademarks, and these trademarks, when compared with others, have strong distinctiveness and are either identical or similar to each other.
(2) The applicant for the disputed trademark has applied to register multiple trademarks, and these trademarks are identical or similar to the names of other enterprises, organizations, or institutions, the distinctive names of well-known products, their packaging, or decoration, etc.
(3) Where the applicant for the disputed trademark has registered a large number of trademarks and clearly lacks a genuine intention for their use;
(4) Other circumstances where it can be determined that the registration was obtained through improper means.

Return

Previous：Trademark Invalidity Case No. 15176725 Next：Case of Invalidation of Trademark No. 41890074 - "S7"