【Basic Facts】 
Plaintiff: Shenzhen Xianying Technology Co., Ltd. (represented by our firm) 
The respondent: Fujian Zuo Xiaobang Technology Co., Ltd.

The main argument of the opponent: The disputed trademark is exactly the same as the opponent's business name and the text of the cited trademark, constituting a similar trademark on similar goods, and infringing upon the opponent's prior business name rights. Moreover, the respondent still applied for the registration of the disputed trademark despite knowing the opponent and the cited trademark. Additionally, the respondent has a consistent malicious behavior of copying and imitating the well-known trademarks of other entities, which goes against the principle of honesty and trustworthiness and disrupts the normal trademark registration management order. 


Objection Decision: The disputed trademark and the trademark cited by the objecting party have distinct functions, production and sales fields, and consumer groups for the designated goods. They do not belong to similar goods, and thus do not constitute similar trademarks used on similar goods. However, the Chinese non-inherent character combination in the cited trademark by the objecting party has certain originality. The text composition of the disputed trademark is exactly the same as that of the cited trademark. Moreover, after investigation, the disputed party has also applied for registration of multiple trademarks or business names that are the same or similar to those of others that have been used previously and have certain originality. Some of these trademarks have been rejected or have been subject to objections by relevant rights holders. The disputed party has failed to provide a reasonable explanation for this. 

Our bureau holds the view that: The actions of the respondent demonstrate a clear intention to imitate and plagiarize others' trademarks, which has disrupted the normal order of trademark registration management and undermined the fair market order. Such behavior also violates the legislative spirit of the Trademark Law regarding the prohibition of obtaining trademark registration through deception or other improper means, as well as the principle of honesty and good faith. Therefore, the application for registration of the disputed trademark should not be approved. 


【Related Laws and Regulations】 
Article 7 of the Trademark Law: When applying for trademark registration and using a trademark, one shall abide by the principle of honesty and good faith. 
The trademark user shall be responsible for the quality of the goods bearing the trademark. All levels of administrative departments for industry and commerce shall, through trademark management, prevent acts that deceive consumers. 
Article 30 of the Trademark Law: If a trademark application fails to comply with the provisions of this law or is identical or similar to a trademark that has already been registered or preliminarily approved by another party for the same type of goods or similar goods, the Trademark Office shall reject the application and not publish it. 


【Typical Significance】 
The respondent in this case has committed numerous acts of copying and imitating the well-known trademarks of other entities. They have shown a clear intention to copy and imitate others' trademarks, which has disrupted the trademark registration order. Such behavior is of necessary regulatory significance. 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, there was a certain legal application dilemma in this case. However, during the representation process, we ingeniously adopted the principle of good faith in Article 7 of the Trademark Law, regulated the malicious registration behavior of the respondent, maintained a fair and just trademark order, and ultimately obtained the support of the National Intellectual Property Administration, effectively protecting the legitimate rights and interests of enterprises and consumers.