Recently, the Hong Kong Xingdashi Leather Products Co., Ltd. “FEIYANG FION” trademark opposition administrative litigation, represented by lawyer Zhang Hong and lawyer Li Shuhua of Beijing Janlea Law Firm, received a final ruling in favor.

The appellant (the defendant of the original trial), the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, appealed to Beijing Higher People’s Court for a repeal of its original ruling, on the grounds that the “socks” product, associated with the opposed trademark “FEIYANG FION”, did not constitute a similar trademark on the same or similar products with the appealed party (plaintiff of the original trial), Xingdashi Leather Products Co., Ltd.’s cited trademark no. 2 “FIO YOUNG”, which was used on “clothing and leather shoes” products. 

After the trial at Beijing Higher People’s Court, the final ruling held that the “socks” products associated with the opposed trademark and the “clothing and shoes” products associated with the cited trademark no. 2 were both everyday clothing items for common consumers. They were usually used together and had significant similarity in terms of their manufacturing facilities, means of sales and consuming populations. Although the two kinds of products belonged to different categories in the “Classification Table of Similar Products and Services”, the relevant public’s commonsensical understanding of products and services would be neglected, if the “Classification Table” had been the only guideline for judging the similarities between products. Therefore, the Court affirmed the initial ruling of the court.