Trademark Information
Opposed trademark:

(four Chinese characters)

The series of prior registered trademarks of the opponent:

1.; 2.; 3.

Introduction of Case
The opposed trademark has been preliminary approval and published on the designed goods in Class 9 of "navigation Instruments; navigation Instruments for vehicles, etc.," on August 20, 2016. After monitored the opposed trademark, we promptly notified the opponent AMAP SOFTWARE CO. LTD. ("AMAP"). We and the opponent agreed that the application for registration of the opposed trademark would infringe their prior trademark right. We thus have been entrusted to file the opposition on behalf of the opponent according to the relevant provisions of the Trademark Law.
 
Analysis of Case
 The opponent is a leading provider of digital maps, navigation and location service solutions in China. "Gao De (two Chinese characters)" are their core trademark and has a very high reputation and influence on commodities on the goods namely "navigation Instruments; navigation Instruments for vehicles, etc.," in Class 9. The mark "Gao De" is almost wildly known in China. the mark which is a created words, is highly distinctive.
The opponent has a number of prior trademarks " navigation Instruments; navigation Instruments for vehicles, etc.," in Class 9. The opposed trademark "Hu Lian Gao de" completely includes the word "Gao De", and is no obvious different from the opponent's mark in the connotation as a whole. It is the situation that contains the others' trademark that have previously had extremely high visibility or strong distinctiveness.
The lawyers who serve as trademark attorney in this case demonstrated from the three most important points, such as the similarity of the trademark itself, the prior popularity of “Gao De”, and the distinctiveness. The attorney indicated that the use of the opposed trademark can easily lead the confusion and misrecognition to the relevant public, and the opposed trademark and the cited trademarks thus constitute the similar trademarks, thus infringe the opponent's prior rights. The opposed trademark should not be approved for registration, according to Article 30 of the Trademark Law.
 
Results of case
 The Trademark Office supported the attorney's grounds that the opposed trademarks completely included the distinctive part of the cited trademark "Gao De", its entire meaning is not significantly different from the cited trademarks, and it is probably to be confused from the opponent's prior trademarks. Hence, they constitute the similar trademarks in respect of the similar products, the co-existence is easy to cause the consumers to confuse and misrecognize.