Believing Beijing Shishanghui Department Store Company's No.8934660 trademark ONLY constituted similarity with its No.2010352 trademark ONLY, the Denmark-based AKTIESELSKABET AF 21.NOVEMBER 2001 launched a trademark battle in China that would eventually last for six years.

Recently, Beijing High People's Court ended this six-year marathon by,  upholding the decision of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board（TRAB） under the State Administration for Commerce and Industry（SAIC）， which previously ruled that the trademark in question registered on carnelian, silver and jewelry should be revoked.

The trademark in question was filed by Shishanghui for registration on December 9, 2010, certifying to be used on Class 14 products （unprocessed or semi-processed precious metal, silver and jewelry）。 On November 13, 2011, the Trademark Office（TMO） under the SAIC rejected the registration for the trademark in question to be used on unprocessed or semi-processed precious metal but allowing it to be used on other products after preliminary examination and publication.

On February 3, 2012, NOVEMBER 2001 lodged an opposition against the trademark in dispute to TMO, claiming similarity between it and its own on similar products.

After further examination, TMO revoked the registration of the trademark in dispute on the similar products referred by NOVEMBER 2001, while approving registration on other products. The disgruntled Shishanghui Department filed a review application to TRAB.

On March 2, 2015, TRAB seconded the TMO decision. After exhausting all administrative alternatives, Shishanghui brought the case to Beijing IP Court, claiming that the trademark in question was an extension mark of its own No.1081414 registered trademark, namely ONLY 旺利 and its figure （basic trademark）。

Unfortunately, Beijing IP Court did not buy its argument. The determined Shishanghui then appealed to Beijing High People's Court.

After hearing, Beijing High held that the trademark in question would cause confusion among the public when used on the similar products as the cited trademark, considering relatively high reputation of the cited trademark. So similarity was constituted. In parallel, the court held that Shishanghui had failed to prove popularity of its basic trademark, and there exists large difference between the trademark in question and basic trademark in terms of how they look. So the basic trademark could not be used as a basis for registration of trademark in dispute.

In this connection, Beijing High made its final-instance judgment, denying Shishuanghui's appeal. （by Wang Guohao）

（Source: CHINA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY NEWS）