Declaration of Invalidity of the "SAIC" Trademark Case
Applicant for declaration of invalidity: SAIC Motor Corporation Limited
Respondent for declaration of invalidity: Zou Nian Sheng
Trademark Information: 
Focus of the Case:
The key issue in this case is whether the application and registration of the disputed trademark constitutes the circumstances referred to in Article 13, paragraph 3 of the Trademark Law.
The disputed trademark, No. 16094750, "SAIC", was applied for by the respondent Zou Nian Sheng on January 6, 2015, and was approved for registration on April 21, 2016, for use in Class 35 "Personnel management consulting; business relocation" services. The applicant, SAIC Motor Corporation Limited, filed a request for declaration of invalidity of the disputed trademark on July 20, 2017, claiming that the disputed trademark constitutes a copy or imitation of its well-known trademark No. 4178551, "SAIC", and violates the provisions of Article 13, paragraph 3 of the Trademark Law. After review, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) ruled that the applicant's grounds for declaration of invalidity were valid and declared the disputed trademark invalid. The respondent was dissatisfied with the TRAB's ruling and filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court within the time limit. The court dismissed the plaintiff's lawsuit, and the ruling has taken effect, and the trademark has been declared invalid. The key issue in this case is whether the application and registration of the disputed trademark constitutes the circumstances referred to in Article 13, paragraph 3 of the Trademark Law. The TRAB's review found that before the application and registration of the disputed trademark, the cited trademark had a high degree of recognition and was well-known to the relevant public. The disputed trademark and the cited trademark are identical in wording and are used in designated services that are very likely to mislead consumers into believing that they have some connection with the applicant, thereby causing misidentification of the source of the services and harming the applicant's interests. In this case, the TRAB and the Beijing Intellectual Property Court's determination of "misleading the public" and how to apply Article 13, paragraph 3, is of typical significance.
Previous Page
Next Page
