Beijing High People's Court recently made a final judgment on the trademark dispute over the No.13912825 "LADY M" trademark (the trademark in dispute)， denying the appeal of a person surnamed Hu and upholding the first-instance judgment that rendered the trademark in dispute invalid.

On January 14, 2014, Shanghai Hami Amusement Equipment Company (Hami) submitted an application for registration of the trademark in dispute, which would later be approved to be used on Class 30 goods including coffee beverages, tea beverages, confectioneries, cakes, biscuits and ice creams on April 14, 2015. On May 27, 2017, the disputed trademark was certified to be transferred from Hami to an individual surnamed Hu from Zhejiang Province.

On March 20, 2017, Lady M Confections Co., LTD., founded in 2001, lodged an invalidation request to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) under the former State Administration for Industry and Commerce, challenging the registration of the trademark in dispute. Lady M company asserted that its boutiques have high popularity and influences all over the world and the trademark in dispute was similar to the company's No.10580616 trademark “LADY M CONFECTIONS M and its figure” (cited trademark)， which had infringed its trade name right and constituted squatting in bad faith. In addition, both “Lady M” and “Lady M and its figure” trademarks have high popularity and distinctiveness. By showing complete consistence with the distinctive parts of the above two trademarks, the trademark in dispute could not distinguish the proper sources of goods, which would cause confusion among the public.

TRAB held that Lady M Company's cited trademarks have been promoted and used to a certain extent before the disputed trademark's application for registration. Hami's registration for the similar disputed trademark had constituted squatting of Lady M's previously-registered reputable trademark by illicit means. Therefore, TRAB nullified the trademark in dispute on April 24, 2018.

Hu was not satisfied with the decision and then brought an administrative request at Beijing IP Court, but would only experience frustration again by hearing the same reasoning from the bench. On May 29, 2019, Beijing IP Court rejected the request filed by Hu during the first-instance judgment.

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

However, Hu's persistence did not pay dividends. Beijing High also recognized the squatting, rejected Hu's appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment.（by Wang Guohao）

(Source: CHINA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY NEWS)