Recently, lawyer Zhang Hong and lawyer Xu Jin of Beijing Janlea Law Firm attended the litigation of a company in Taiwan against the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board “Bao Dao” serial trademarks repeal review administrative litigation. After the trial at Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court, the litigation claims of our client in the serial cases were all supported.
 

After the trial, Beijing No.1 People’s Court held that the main point of dispute was the tenable reasons for whether or not Hainan Hongta Tobacco Co., Ltd. is applicable for the review trademark within the prescribed period.
 

In this case, Hainan Hongta Tobacco Co., Ltd., as a subordinate company of China Tobacco Industrial Development Center directly under the State Tobacco Monopoly Administration, should have organized its production according to the command of State Tobacco Monopoly Administration. Hainan Hongta Tobacco Co., Ltd.’s cessation of using the review trademark within the prescribed period was due to the limitation on the production of tobacco brands placed by relevant governmental administration, the State Tobacco Monopoly Administration in this case, on account of policies. This objectively caused the owner of trademark, Hainan Hongta Tobacco Co., Ltd., to not be able to put the review trademark into commercial use. Therefore, Hainan Hongta Tobacco Co., Ltd.’s cessation of using the review trademark within the prescribed period had justifiable reasons. It was appropriate for the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to rule that Hongta Tobacco Co., Ltd.’s cessation of using the review trademark within the prescribed period had justifiable reasons. The plaintiff, the company in Taiwan’s litigation claim lacked factual support and legal basis and also had no sufficient evidence. The court would not support its claim. Finally, the Court affirmed the Trademark Review [2013] no. 120764 and no. 120765 trademark refusal review decisions made by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board.
 

This case is meaningful as a typical example. The tobacco industry is a special industry that is under the state control. The production and selling of products of specific brands require approval from the regulating administration of the state. Due to the regulation of state tobacco industry’s policies, currently, many tobacco trademarks are under limited applications. Therefore, this case draws extensive attention from the relevant the regulating administration of the state and the industry. It is also an example for the processing of similar cases in the future.