Recently, the trademark administrative lawsuit on review of opposition where Janlea’s lawyers, i.e. Mr. Zachary Zhang and Mr. Andy Xu, as the authorized agent of AB InBev Harbin Beer Co., Ltd, prosecuted the defendants-Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and the third party Wang has been concluded by Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court. AB InBev Harbin Beer Co., Ltd’s claim was supported by the court.     

The key issue of contention of this case lies in whether “non-alcoholic beverages; fruit juices; non-alcoholic fruit juice beverages; seltzer water; pure water (drink); aerated water; lactic acid beverage; legume drink; coke” designated by the opposed trademark and “beer” covered by the cited trademark constitute similar goods.

After hearing, Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court renders judgment as follows: despite the fact that the opposed trademark is used on “beers; non-alcoholic beverages; fruit juices; non-alcoholic fruit juice beverages; seltzer water; pure water (drink); aerated water; lactic acid beverage; legume drink; coke” and that there are certain differences between the aforesaid goods except for beers and beer products covered by the cited trademark in terms of raw materials and production technology, they share basically identical target consumers, similar sales places and consistent consuming places. What’s more, judging from market conditions, some of traditional beer production enterprises have started manufacturing mineral water, pure water and beverages. Hence, with regards to goods designated by the opposed trademark and those covered by the cited trademark, the relevant public tends to assume that there are certain connections between them, liable to cause misidentifications. Therefore, the foregoing goods have constituted similar goods. To sum up, this court holds that the opposed trademark and cited 1 and 3 have constituted similar marks used on identical or similar goods. The TRAB’s decision that the opposed trademark used on “non-alcoholic beverages; fruit juice” does not violated Article 28 of Trademark Law of the P.R.C is incorrect. In conclusion, he TRAB’s No. 11317 decision is devoid of factual and legal basis and thus is revoked by this court.

The typical significance of this case lies in the fact that although beers and non-alcoholic beverages were not decided as similar goods in the previous judgment by Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court, Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court also adjusted its standards for the ascertainment of similar goods and rendered judgment on the similarity of goods in pace with times and in compliance with the case-by-case analysis of specific cases for the simple reason that with the development of productivity, consumers’ consuming habits and needs are changing as well, meaning that manufacturers’ concept is always under a dynamic and changing status.