“Da Bao” trademark invalidity case
Applicant for declaration of invalidity: China Pacific Insurance (Group) Co., Ltd.
Applicant against whom the declaration of invalidity is made: Xiamen Dongfang Weiye Insurance Agency Co., Ltd.
Trademark Information: 
Focus of this case:
Whether "Dabao" and "Taibao" constitute similarity, whether the applicant's subjective intention can be used as one of the influencing factors in determining whether trademarks constitute similarity, and under what circumstances the abbreviation of a company name can be recognized as a prior right to counteract trademark rights.
The disputed trademark No. 11637581 "Dabao" was applied for by the respondent Xiamen Dongfang Weiye Insurance Agency Co., Ltd. on October 22, 2012, and was initially announced on January 20, 2014. The applicant, China Pacific Insurance (Group) Co., Ltd., filed an opposition within the time limit. After review, the Trademark Office ruled that the opposition was invalid, and the disputed trademark was approved for registration. The applicant then filed a request for a declaration of invalidity of the disputed trademark. After review, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board ruled to uphold the disputed trademark. The applicant, dissatisfied with the ruling, filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court within the time limit. After review, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court found that the application and registration of the trademark in dispute infringed on the applicant's prior right to the abbreviation of its company name, constituting a violation of Article 32 of the Trademark Law. The court ruled to revoke the appealed ruling and ordered the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to make a new ruling.
The State Intellectual Property Office and Dongfang Weiye Company were dissatisfied with the judgment and appealed to the Beijing Higher People's Court. After hearing the appeal, the Beijing Higher People's Court dismissed the appeal. The disputed trademark was declared invalid after re-adjudication by the State Intellectual Property Office. The focus of this case is whether "Dabao" and "Taibao" constitute similarity, whether the applicant's subjective intention can be used as one of the influencing factors in determining whether trademarks constitute similarity, and under what circumstances the abbreviation of a company name can be recognized as a prior right to counteract trademark rights. The final ruling in this case is of typical significance for the outcome of the above two points of contention.
Previous Page
Next Page
