The "NBA" Trademark Provoked Controversy &Nbsp; The Trademark Review And Adjudication Board Became A Defendant.

When it comes to "NBA", most people can think of the US professional basketball league for the first time. The names of basketball superstars are like thunder, and "NBA" has become a world-renowned trademark.

Recently, a motor factory in Zhongshan, Guangdong, was allowed to register "NBA" and its logo on the sewing machine electrical products. The NBA product of Limited by Share Ltd, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and commerce, went to court.

The US business company is an American company. The famous NBA Basketball League is its League. At the same time, the company also deals in sporting goods, clothing and many other commodities. The trademark "NBA" series (hereinafter referred to as "citation mark") used by American business companies, including trademarks of "NBA", "NBA and map", is a famous trademark created and used by the world.

In October 21, 1998, a motor factory in Zhongshan, Guangdong, applied to the Trademark Office for the approval of the Trademark Office for the use of "NBA" and drawings (hereinafter referred to as "disputed trademarks") on the sewing machine electrical goods.

The US business company believes that the word "NBA" of the motor factory's application for registration of "NBA" and its trademark is very obvious. It is a malicious plagiarism of all its trademarks of "NBA", "NBA and map", making it easy for consumers to associate the trademark with the company, resulting in confusion and misrecognition, thereby damaging their legitimate rights and interests.

In August 2001, the Trademark Office made a ruling on trademark objection, ruled that the reasons for objections raised by the US business company were not valid and were approved and registered by the objection trademarks.

The US business company continues to apply for reexamination to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, and the Adjudication Board also decides to be approved and registered by the objection trademark.

The US business company objected to the prosecution of a central hospital, pointed out that the character of the objected trademark was "NBA" and its graphics part was close to a kind of motor graphics. For its designated commodities, the graphic art creativity was very low, and its significance was weak. If consumers observe the trademark, the key point of recognition is "NBA" three letters. The use of the disputed trademark will make consumers associate the plaintiff's "NBA" trademark with the trademark, which will lead to consumers' misidentification.

The American commercial company claims that the trademark cited in the administrative review includes two sets of trademarks, including "NBA" and "NBA and map". However, the ruling made by the Trademark Review Board has only reviewed the reasons for the reversion of the trademark "NBA and map".

The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board considers that although the disputed trademarks and the quoted trademarks contain the letter "NBA", there are differences in the arrangement of letters, the overall distinction between the trademarks is larger, and the goods of the sewing machine motor designated by the dissenting trademark are not similar to the commodities designated by the plaintiff for the trademark.

Therefore, the disputed trademark and the quoted trademark do not constitute an application for similar trademark registration on the same or similar commodity.

Although the American commercial company claims that its citation mark is recognized as a well known trademark worldwide, the evidence provided is not enough to prove that the citation mark has become a well-known trademark known to the public before it is approved and registered by the objection trademark application. There is no evidence to prove that the authorized registration of the objection trademark will mislead the public, which may damage the interests of the plaintiff.

Guo Xiushen, an expert committee of the China Trademark Association, believes that the provisions of the ninth, thirteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, twenty-eighth, twenty-ninth, thirty-first and forty-first articles of the trademark law ensure that the concept of sharing the trademark marks between the different trademark registration applicants is ensured. In the scope of fairness and justice, different trademark registration applicants can achieve order in the acquisition of trademark marks, so that the balance between the legitimate trademark interests and the public interests of different trademark registration applicants can be achieved.

The well-known trademark protection system was initially established on the basis of traditional trademark confusion theory. The larger the popularity of trademark, the wider the scope of protection is, and it can be applied to different kinds of commodities.

However, not all well-known trademarks are protected across the board across the board, or else they are unfair.

The cross class protection of well-known trademarks should have a certain length.

The length of the cross class protection of well-known trademarks should be determined by the popularity of the market and the universality of the relevant public.

"NBA" is a well-known trademark. The length of its trademark protection should be determined by its market coverage and the public's universality.

Common sense can be seen that the relevant public of the "NBA" trademark of the US business company has completely covered the relevant public of the "NBA" trademark of the motor factory. Therefore, the "NBA" trademark is used on the motor, and it is very likely that the relevant public may think there is an investment relationship, a trademark licensing relationship or a cooperative relationship between the two brands.

In the judicial practice of trademark infringement disputes, paying attention to the balance of interests between the parties is the basic manifestation and implementation mode of carrying out the value orientation of fairness and justice.

On the one hand, judging from the rights and obligations of the parties involved in the judgment, the court judges each case of specific trademark infringement cases, and judges and judges the interests of the parties. On the other hand, the judicial decision should guide the interests and balances of the parties in a fair and reasonable way, and also need to further reflect the interest orientation behind the case, especially the balance between individual interests and public interests.

Guo Xiushen emphasized that such judicial decisions are mainly through specific cases, to encourage the society to publicize the trademark legal system, what acts should be encouraged, what actions should be stopped, what acts should be protected, and what actions should be sanctioned.

The protection of well-known trademarks is only a means to encourage innovation, maintain fair competition, promote economic development, and further promote social progress, which is the real gist of the well-known trademark system.

Therefore, when implementing the principle of balance of interests in the trial of trademark infringement disputes, administrative organs and judicial organs should investigate the balance between personal interests and public interests and maintain fair competition in the trademark field, which is of great significance for the correct application of the law, the overall distribution of the rights and obligations among the parties, and the fair and reasonable maintenance of the legitimate rights and interests of the parties concerned.

The court held that, when applying for reexamination to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, the US business company put forward the trademark "NBA" and "NBA and map" trademark as the trademark of the citation, and put forward that the two groups of trademarks constituted well-known trademarks. The objection trademark constituted the reasons for the retrial and imitation of the two sets of cited trademarks of the two groups.

Referring to the provisions of article twenty-eighth of the trademark review rules, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board hears a case of retrial which does not conform to the objection order of the Trademark Office, and shall review the facts, reasons and requests of the party's application for reexamination and the defense.

The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board only reviewed the reasons for the review of the trademark "NBA and map" trademark, and did not examine all the reasons for the relevant reexamination of the "NBA" trademark as a citation mark.

Therefore, the ruling made by the trademark review board is insufficient and the evidence is not sufficient, and the court ruled the case by first instance.