Recently, Beijing Higher People’s Court made the final judgement that, the trademark“ 房 地 美 ” (hereafter as the questioned trademark) registered by Henan QiDu Real Estate Agency Co.,Ltd(hereafter as Qi Du) constituted similar trademarks used on the same or similar service with the English trademark FREDDIE MAC(hereafter as the cited trademark) by Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation(hereafter as Freddie Mac). The higher court’s final judgment maintained the original court’s ruling and dismissed Qi Du’s claims of trademark registration of ”房地美”. Before that, FREDDIE MAC questioned for constituting similar trademarks of both trademarks. After examination, Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) under the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of China(SAIC) rejected the registration of the questioned trademark. The case was brought to administrative proceedings.

The questioned No “6554134” trademark“ 房 地 美 ”was approved through the preliminary examination in June 2010. Freddie Mac challenged the questioned trademark in Sept. 2010. In May 2012, the Trademark Office(TMO) Of SAIC approved the registration of the questioned trademark.

The disgruntled plaintiff submitted review of the registration of the mark to TRAB. In Oct 2013, TRAB cancelled the registration. Qi Du then brought the case to Beijing No.1 Intermidate People’s Court.

In 2014, the court rejected the claims made by Qi Du and upheld TRAB’s ruling. Qi Du then appealed to Beijing Higher People’s court.

The higher court held that current evidence is sufficient to testify“ 房 地 美 ” is a form of translation of “FREDDIE MAC” and the two marks have a corresponding relation. The cited trademark has enjoyed some reputation on financial service such as mortgage loan. Meanwhile, the questioned trademark“房地美”is the same as the Chinese translation of “FREDDIE MAC”. In view of the cited trademark’s distinctiveness and high reputation, the usage of two marks could easily mislead the consumers who tend to think the questioned mark has some association with the company“FREDDIE MAC”.

For the reasons above, the court made the final judement.

（by Mao Liguo)

(Source: CHINA REPORT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY)