Follow our WeChat account
-- Introduction of the Case
Weijutou (Beijing) Network Technology Co., Ltd. ("respondent") applied for the application of the trademark "" ("the disputed trademark") on June 1, 2015. it has been approved for registration on August 21, 2016 on the services of "organizing cultural or educational exhibitions, arranging and organizing conferences, entertainment" etc., in Class 41. Our office filed a request of the invalidation against the disputed trademark on behalf of our client on May 14, 2019, in accordance with the relevant provisions of Articles 4, 7, 32 and 44 (1) of the Trademark Law. The respondent has not filed the response within the prescribed time.
Upon examination, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) thus holds that the registration of the disputed trademark violated Article 4 of the Trademark Law and should be declared invalid on January 29, 2019.
After reviewing the relevant winning cases and theoretical studies, our lawyers have summarized and analyzed the applicable requirements of the clause as follows:
First of all, we need to find out whether the holder has the qualification to exercise trademark rights. In this case, the respondent’s business license had been revoked. According to Articles 180 and 183 of the Company Law (2018 Amendment) and Article 42 of the Regulations on the Registration and Administration of Companies (2016 Amendment), the revocation shall cause the enterprise to lose the qualification for production and business activities and also makes the enterprise no longer have the subject qualification to obtain the exclusive right of register trademarks.
Secondly, the disputed trademark has always been held by the respondent and no assignment was filed.
Thirdly, the respondent did not actively participate in responding to the invalidation and claimed his own rights, no response was filed within the prescribed time.
In conclusion, the life of a trademark lies in using it. A registered trademark not for use should not be maintained. The CNIPA finally adopted our views and declare the disputed trademark invalid according to Article 4 of the Trademark Law.