This case is for a globally renowned Fortune 500 jewelry industry leader. Facing severe challenges such as long-standing malicious trademark registration, brand confusion, and high costs of维权， we have tailored an annual intellectual property brand custody plan for them.

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.

In this case, the trademark registration certificate cannot be used alone as evidence to prove the establishment of prior copyright. Moreover, the respondent provided a trademark registration certificate from an overseas region. Furthermore, in cases of copyright infringement, the "contact + substantial similarity" principle is generally applied. There is no possibility that the respondent had any contact with the respondent's work.

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 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.

The disputed trademark in this case is the cited trademark in the client's opposition review case. In the opposition review case, we found that the applied-for trademark is the upper part of the client's prior trademark, but it cited the disputed trademark which was rejected.