Brief introduction:

Fars Pula Georgia company fire extinguishing mixture as a specialized manufacturing, sales, and other goods company compound fire. The company first used the "FireAde2000" brand on fire extinguishing products in 1999.

In 2006 August 16, 2006, Dongyuan International Enterprise Limited company and Hongkong China Fars Pula signed a distributor agreement, the agreement to allow the sales company in the market area China Fars Pula "FireAde2000" products such as fire extinguishing agent. Since then, the agency sales relationship between the two sides was formally established.

However, Dong Yuan international enterprise limited but without the permission of the Fars Pula company in August 2, 2006, originally belonging to the Fars Pula company "FireAde2000" trademark in China were registered, and successfully registered in October 7, 2009, approved the fire extinguishing agent and the replacement goods, Trademark No. 5517606, valid until October 6, 2019.

After learning the matter, the company, entrusted with Fang Tao intellectual property agency, filed an application for a dispute on the disputed trademark registered by Dong Yuan International Enterprises Limited in September 10, 2013. The case was concluded in June 6, 2015, and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce ruled that the trademark dispute was invalid.

Main reason:

In the case of trademark right, our main reason for four points: first, whether the company has previously Fars Pula trademark dispute; secondly, whether there is sales agent relationship Dongyuan International Enterprises Limited and Fars Pula company; finally, whether to allow East yuan Pula Fars International Enterprise Limited registered trademark dispute in Chinese range.

From our company to the Fars Pula evidence, the trademark dispute began in 1999, in a way that it has the trademark rights first in the United States; Dongyuan International Enterprise Co., Ltd. and Faas Pla at the beginning of 2006 consultations related agency matters, and in August 16, 2006 formally signed a sales agent agreement for goods is "FireAde2000" brand fire extinguishing agent and replacement of goods; in order to maintain global uniqueness of the trademark dispute, Faas Pla company clearly in the agreement that allows the agent shall not without the registered trademark dispute.

In general, the "trademark law" article fifteenth prohibits agents based on the specific identity and registered by the time node should be formally identified in the agency relationship between the two sides, but in the "Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the trial of administrative cases of trademark authorization confirmation opinions" provisions of article twelfth, cybersquatting behavior occurred in the agent, representative relationship is still in negotiation earlier stage, namely, agent, representative relationship formed in the rear, this should be viewed as a representative of the registered agent, behavior.

Combined with this case, I think the Secretary, although the agency in August 16, 2006 officially formed, but due to the cooperation matters need longer negotiations, both at the beginning of 2006 sales negotiation matters according to the details, to determine the identity of the agent in the judicial practice, then it shall be deemed that the Dongyuan International Enterprise Limited is the company in mainland China Fars Pula agent. And the two trademarks, registered items similar to the same, according to the provisions of the 2001 "trademark law" article fifteenth of the trademark dispute shall remove a dinner table.
 

Finally, the judges supported my reasons.

Thinking in this case:
 

It is worth mentioning that the Dong Yuan International Enterprise Limited in order to prove the legitimacy of the registration act, in reply the Fars company is aware of the trademark dispute Paula facts, and the burden of the registration fee, and submit the exchanged messages and remittance. But our judges are considered: only by the agent of the financial burden of proof, and can not explain the principal known application by agent name trademark dispute, but does not mean that the agent can recognize the agent's name registered trademark dispute behavior, on the contrary, it proved that the dispute is the trademark agent of the property agent people have reason to burden the cost.

But in the stage of exchange of evidence, "the Supreme People's Court of intellectual property cases to guide the" sixth album, which included the knowledge (2013) No. ninety-seventh administrative rulings, the same with the case of the dispute, the Supreme Court considered that the bill is not only relevant text records, the bill only the sum of expenses shall be borne by the obligee, and can not prove that human rights awareness dispute trademark registration body, but can not prove the rights of people recognized by others in their own name registration trademark dispute fact. On the contrary, the request from another angle that the dispute of trademark rights of property, so the relevant expenses shall be approved by the obligee and charged. We quoted the referee's point of view and gave the other party a responsive response.