Beijing High People's Court recently made a judgment on a case regarding reexamination of No.7496085澳斯桐AUSTONE trademark (trademark in question) ，ruling that the trademark in question is similar with No.G692849 CHATEAU AUSONE trademark when used on the similar products.

In June 2009, AUSTRALIA LA KAFITE WINE LTD filed the trademark in question to the former Trademark Office (TMO) under State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) for registration on use of Class 33 goods including wines. Published after preliminary examination, a French individual named Alan Voje challenged the registration but would only see TMO's approval of the registration.

Voje then pled to SAIC's Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) , claiming that the trademark in question is similar with its registered No.G692849 CHATEAU AUSONE trademark (cited trademark) and the trademark in question was registered by means of deception.

The TRAB held that there exists prominent differences in pronunciation　and composition of letters between the two trademarks, so they are not similar. The evidence presented by Voje could not approve that the trademark in dispute was obtained in bad faith. Therefore， the former TRAB upheld the registration of trademark in question.

Voje then brought the case to Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court.

The No.1 Court held that the trademark in question was composed of Chinese characters澳斯桐 and an English word AUSTONE, while the cited trademark was made up of two English words CHATEAU AUSONE, there exists distinctive differences between the two in composition of words and overall visual effect. The No.1 Court upheld the decision made by the former TRAB.

The disgruntled Voje then appealed to Beijing High People's Court.

Beijing High held that as the word CHATEAU in the cited trademark means chateau, castle and estate, it lacks of distinctiveness when used on wine products, the word AUSONE was the distinctive part of the cited trademark. Although the trademark in question contains Chinese characters, the two trademarks are still difficult to distinguish. In this connection, Beijing High rejected the first-instance ruling and remanded the case to the China National Intellectual Property Administration (Note: After government restructuring, CNIPA inherited the former TRAB's missions) .（by Wang Jing）

(Source: CHINA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY NEWS)