Recently, lawyer Zhang Hong and Lawyer Li Shuhua of Beijing Janlea Law Firm represented Jurlique International Co., Ltd. in the “Zuli Jurlique and Picture” trademark opposition review administrative litigation and received final ruling in favor.

The third party of this case registered the opposed trademark “ ” on the “import and export agency; auction; sales (for others); intermediating for others (purchasing products or services for other businesses” service. Jurlique International Co., Ltd., therefore, cited the priorly registered trademarks including “ ”, “ ”, and “ ” on type 3 products and filed opposition and opposition review.

After two trials at Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court and Beijing Higher People’s Court respectively, the final ruling supported our claim of appeal, and repealed the adjudication of Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court.

Beijing Higher People’s Court held that, although the Copyright Registration Certificate of involved work in this case was later than the application date of the opposed trademark, submitted evidence could prove that the involved work was finished before the application date of the opposed trademark. Also, as proved by the evidence submitted by Jurlique International, including the Copyright Registration Certificate, the notarized copy of the Copyright Registration Certificate received in China and the copy of copyright assignment agreement, Jurlique International was the copyright owner of the involved work in this case. The pictorial part of the opposed trademark was completely the same as the involved work, and the third party failed to explain related events to the completion of the trademark. Therefore, the third party had infringed Jurlique’s prior copyright. The defendant and the first-instance court’s decision on this fact was wrong and should be corrected.

This case is another successful example of the client represented by our lawyers repealing Trademark Review and Adjudication Board’s and first-instance court’s rulings in the second trial, and also another of Janlea Trademark Agency’s contention of copyright receiving support from the court.