"Hang Seng" trademark objection right transfer case

Beijing Hengsheng Far East Electronic Computer Group (hereinafter referred to as Hengsheng Group) sued to the Beijing First Intermediate People's Court on the grounds that the administrative act of the Trademark Office refusing to make a ruling against its "Hang Seng" trademark was incorrect. The court of first instance made a judgment of first instance on December 20, 2001, and the Trademark Office lost. After the judgment of the first instance, the Trademark Office appealed to the Beijing Higher People's Court in accordance with the law. On November 8, 2002, the Court of second Instance made a final judgment in favor of the Trademark Office. The basic facts of the case, the reasons for action of the plaintiff (appellee) and the defendant (appellant), the reasons for judgment and the results of the first and second trials are summarized as follows:
1. Basic Facts
The registered trademark of "Hengsheng" was obtained by Anhui Weichuang Electronics Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Anhui Weichuang Company) in accordance with the law on February 20, 1993, and signed a trademark transfer agreement with Hengsheng Group on January 10, 1998. On April 21, 1999, the Trademark Office announced the preliminary examination and approval of the "Hang Seng" trademark applied for registration by the Beijing Hang Seng Science and Technology Development Company, and received the objection of Anhui Wei Chuang Company to the "Hang Seng" trademark on June 24, 1999. On June 28 of the same year, the Trademark Office approved the registration of "Hengsheng" trademark transfer. On July 26, 1999, the business license of Anhui Weichuang Company was revoked due to lack of annual inspection. On July 27, 2000, Anhui Wei Chuang Company submitted to the Trademark Office the "Fact Sheet" submitted by Hengsheng Group to its objection to the "Hengsheng" trademark. At the beginning of August of the same year, Hengsheng Group submitted the above notes and a protest in the name of its own company to the Trademark Office, but the Trademark Office did not accept the objection on the grounds that the objection request exceeded the legal period of three months. On the 18th of the same month, Hengsheng Group sent the "Protest" to the Trademark Office by registered mail, and the Trademark Office signed and received it on the 22nd of the same month. On July 5, 2001, the Trademark Office made No. 1133 decision on Anhui Weichuang Company and Beijing Hundsun Technology Development Co., LTD. The plaintiff Hengsheng Group sued that Anhui Weichuang Company had transferred the trademark of "Hengsheng" to the plaintiff after raising the objection, and the plaintiff, as the successor of the trademark objection, had explained the situation to the defendant in a timely manner and asserted the right to objection. The defendant's refusal to make an objection ruling to the plaintiff is not correct, and requests the court to order the defendant to revoke the ruling No. 1133 and make a written ruling to the plaintiff.
The defendant Trademark Office argues that the right to object is a legal right enjoyed by any person and is not transferred in connection with the transfer of other rights. There is no legal basis for the plaintiff to request the change of the opponent during the trial of the opposition case. The plaintiff's action of claiming the right of objection has exceeded the statutory objection period, and the plaintiff is at fault for failing to file the objection application within the statutory objection period. The defendant is correct in not making a ruling against the plaintiff, and requests the court to dismiss all the plaintiff's claims.
Ii. Results of the first instance
The Beijing First Intermediate People's Court held that one of the purposes of the State's establishment of the administrative adjudication procedure for trademark objections is to resolve trademark disputes, safeguard the legitimate trademark rights and interests of trademark owners from infringement, and ensure the correctness of trademark dispute adjudication through the review procedure of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce. The provisions of Article 19 of the Trademark Law that "any person may raise an objection" are the broadest limits on the subject of an objection. On the one hand, this clause reflects the maintenance of national and social public interests, and on the other hand, it also reflects the extensive protection of the legitimate trademark rights and interests of relevant stakeholders. When the plaintiff was approved by the defendant to obtain the "Hengsheng" trademark, the three-month period for the plaintiff to object to the "Hang Seng" trademark had passed, and it was difficult for the plaintiff to use the statutory period to effectively exercise the right to object, and the defendant's interpretation of the general provisions on the objection period as restricting the plaintiff's protection of its trademark rights and interests was inconsistent with the legislative purpose of the provision. At the same time, when the original opponent has been cancelled, and the Trademark Law neither restricts the trademark owner from continuing to claim the right of opposition nor prohibits the trademark owner from making an objection ruling in this case, the defendant shall, in accordance with the principle of rationality of administrative law, take actions that are conducive to safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the trademark owner, and shall not take actions that limit or even damage the legitimate rights and interests of the trademark owner. In this case, the defendant's refusal to make an objection ruling to the plaintiff makes the plaintiff unable to claim the objection right and protect its legitimate trademark rights and interests through the review procedure, which not only obviously violates the principle of administrative rationality, but also lacks legal basis. At the same time, since the defendant is fully aware of the facts and reasons for the trademark dispute, the plaintiff should be made a trademark opposition ruling as soon as possible. In addition, according to the provisions of Article 22 of the Trademark Law in force at the time of the defendant's ruling, the defendant's ruling No. 1133 does not belong to the scope of the examination of the case, so the court does not hold the defendant's request for revoking the ruling No. 1133. Therefore, the judgment orders the defendant to make an objection ruling on the "Hang Seng" trademark to the plaintiff within 10 days after the judgment takes effect; The plaintiff's other claims are dismissed.
3. Trademark Office appeals according to law
The Trademark Office appealed to the Beijing Higher People's Court for the following reasons: The Trademark Office handled the trademark opposition case in accordance with the procedures stipulated in the Trademark Law, and there was no violation of the law; The court of first instance violated the principle of legality review and reviewed the principle of reasonableness, ignored the statutory objection period, and misinterpreted the legislative purpose of Article 19 of the Trademark Law on the objection period. Hengsheng Group has no right to obtain the qualification of dissenter, and it is at fault for its failure to effectively exercise the right of dissent. Request the court of second instance to revoke the judgment of first instance and reject all litigation claims of Hengsheng Group.
Hengsheng Group believes that the trademark Office's reasons for appeal cannot be established and should be rejected. The judgment of the court of first instance is correct, and it is requested to be upheld in the second instance.
Iv. Results of the second instance
After hearing, the Beijing Higher People's Court held that in accordance with the provisions of China's trademark administration law, any person may file an objection to a trademark that has been preliminarily examined and approved within three months from the date of announcement. The establishment of the trademark objection system reflects the principle of fairness and openness in trademark administration. According to the legal provisions of the right of application for opposition, any person or organization can raise an objection to the registration application of the preliminary examination and approval of the published trademark within the legal period. Hengsheng Group shall have the right to raise objections within three months after the announcement of the preliminary examination of the "Hang Seng" trademark is issued, especially in the case that after obtaining the ownership of the "Hang Seng" trademark according to law and considering that the "Hang Seng" trademark announced in the preliminary examination may violate its legitimate rights and interests, it shall promptly and effectively exercise the relevant rights and interests to protect its legitimate rights and interests. Since Hengsheng Group did not exercise the above right of objection within three months as required by law, the Trademark Office did not accept its later application for objection is legitimate. Hengsheng Group's claim that Anhui Wei Chuang Company has transferred the right to object to its own has no legal basis. The grounds of appeal of the Trademark Office should be upheld. The first instance judgment of Hengsheng Group over the statutory period of three months to approve the objection application, there is no legal basis, the judgment is improper, the court should be corrected. The judgment of first instance is therefore annulled; Dismiss the plaintiff's claim.