Case of Invalidation of Trademark No. 41890074 - "S7"

2025-11-19
【Basic Facts】 
Defendant: Ani Household Products Co., Ltd. 


The main reasons of the applicant: The disputed trademark is merely a generic model for the product and does not have distinctive features when used on the designated goods. The respondent has applied for multiple trademarks that are similar to others' well-known or famous trademarks, showing a clear intention to maliciously imitate, which seriously disrupts the market order and violates the principle of honesty and good faith. Therefore, the applicant requests, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Trademark Law, such as Article 4, Article 7, Article 11, Paragraph (1) and (3) of the first item, and Article 44, Paragraph 1, to declare the disputed trademark invalid. 


Invalidity determination ruling: 
In this case, the respondent has registered over 150 trademarks under their name. Apart from the disputed trademark, the respondent has also applied to register numerous trademarks that are identical or similar to well-known brands of others, such as "DIOOUMM", "DEPLAYBOYD", "DIOG", "FIRA", "CHAMJASS", "Meinan Chun", "Luxen Baow", "Fendina", etc. The respondent has not provided a reasonable explanation for this and has not submitted any relevant usage evidence. Their application for registration can hardly be regarded as legitimate. This behavior has clearly exceeded the normal needs of production and operation and shows a deliberate intention to copy or imitate others' trademarks. Such behavior not only causes consumers to mistakenly believe the source of the goods, but also disrupts the normal trademark registration management order and undermines the fair market competition order. Therefore, the application for the disputed trademark registration constitutes the situation stipulated in Article 44, Paragraph 1 of the Trademark Law, which refers to "obtaining registration through other improper means". 


【Typical Significance】 
Article 44, Paragraph 1 of the Trademark Law stipulates that the legislative purpose is to regulate behaviors that disrupt the trademark registration order, harm public interests, unfairly occupy public resources, or seek improper benefits. In this case, the respondent's application for registration of multiple trademarks that are the same or similar to those of other well-known brands has obviously damaged public interests, disrupted the trademark registration order, and constitutes the situation of "obtaining trademark registration through other improper means". At this point, anyone can file for invalidation, and it is not necessary to be the prior right holder or a party with a stake. 


【Related Laws and Regulations】 
Article 44 of the Trademark Law: If a registered trademark violates the provisions of Article 4, Article 10, Article 11, Article 12, or Article 19, Paragraph 4 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.
Return
Previous：Trademark Dispute Case No. 25544694: "BEIENS" Trademark Next：Trademark Opposition Response Case No. 17063282