Recently, lawyer Zhang Hong and Lawyer Xu Jin of Beijing Janlea Law Firm represented AB InBev Harbin Brewery Co., Ltd. (AB InBev) in its trademark opposition review administrative litigation against the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and a third party, a limited company in Dezhou (company in Dezhou). The case was concluded at Beijing No. 1 People’s Court and the litigation claim of AB InBev, represented by our firm, received support from the Court.
 

The Court ruled as follows after the trial: the opposed trademark “Haerman” was a purely textual trademark, and the cited trademark 1 was a text and picture combined trademark consisting of “Harbin and Picture”, which had its textual part as one of the main distinguishing parts. The cited trademark 3-7 were all text and picture combined, with “Harbin” as the main distinguishing parts. Through comparison, it could be observed that the opposed trademark and the cited trademarks all had main distinguishing parts that consisted of three Chinese characters, with first two the same. Therefore, the opposed trademark and the cited trademarks were similar in terms of overall visual display. Also, through their applications, the cited trademarks already possessed relatively high reputation and the simultaneous use of the opposed trademark and the cited trademarks on products including “beer, wort for brewery, and non-alcohol juice” would cause the confusion and misconception among the relevant public. Therefore, the two constituted similar trademarks used on similar products, violating the regulation in article 28 of the Trademark Law. The final ruling repealed the original trademark opposition review adjudication and demanded the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to make another adjudication on the opposition review application filed by AB InBev against n. 7341305 “Haerman” trademark.
 

The case was meaningful because, according to article 28 of the Trademark Law, if trademarks applied for registration do not follow the relevant regulation of this law or are the same or similar to the trademarks others have already registered on the same or similar products, or to the trademarks initially approved, they will be refused for application and not announced publically. Our lawyers utilized this regulation along with the popularity of the cited trademarks, displayed a large amount of evidence, and the promptly protected the lawful rights of AB InBev company.