Previously

Texecom is the technical leader in the security sector in UK, Texecom anti-thief alarm brand is the leading brand in UK security products. Shenzhen City Anwen Technologies Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Anwen Company), the competitor of Texecom, once served as China agent. Anwen Company rushed to register the trademark Texecom in China without approval, and put on record regarding the trademark right in the Customs, this resulted in bad effect on the clearance of Texecom’s goods.

Jealan acted as agent for Texecom to apply to cancel intellectual property protection record in China’s customs, under the record number T2012-24812 (the trademark “Texecom” under right number 3236488) that recorded by Shenzhen Anwen Technologies Co., Ltd.

Basic Facts and Grounds:

Anwen Company submitted application for registration of the trademark “Texecom” under No. 3236488 （hereinafter referred to as disputed trademark）to China Trademark Office on 9th July 2002, and the registration has been approved on 28th July 2007, the exclusive use period was expired on 27th July 2017, the trademark is designated to use on electronic anti-theft devices; alarms and other goods under Class 9.

1st April 2012, Texecom submitted the application for canceling the disputed trademark.

11th November 2013, Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as TRAB) has made the decision, according to the Verdict(S.P.Z. (2013) No.104082) on Trademark Dispute on “Texecom” under No. 3236488”, the disputed trademark has been cancelled.

Anwen company filed administrative lawsuit to Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s court.

20th March 2015, Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s court has made administrative judgement under No。（2014）Yi Zhong Zhi Xing Chu Zi No. 1871, the TRAB’s judgement is maintained.

Anwen company refused to accept the judgement of the first instance, brought the lawsuit to the People’s High court of Beijing.

11th December 2015, the People’s high court of Beijing made the judgement with number (2015) Gao Xing (Zhi) Zhong Zi No.3809, the appeal has been rejected, and the original judgement has been affirmed.

This judgement is the final judgement, that is, the disputed trademark is granted to cancel, and the trademark should be invalid.

To sum up, the applicant, Texecom company held that, the respondent, Anwen company didn’t change the recordal or transact the cancellation procedure according to article 11.1 of Intellectual Property Customs Protection Regulation of the People’s Republic of China, and posed bad influence on the applicant’s legal imported goods, the applicant applied for cancelling the respondent’s intellectual property customs protection recordal for the trademark “Texecom” under reg. No. 3236488 with the recordal number T2012-24812.

Decision of the Customs:

According to the review, the Customs held that, the trademark “TEXECOM”with reg. no. 3236488 has been judged to cancel by Verdict on Dispute of the trademark “TEXECOM”with reg. no. 236488 (Shang Ping Zi [2003] No.104082) issued by Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the People's Republic of China. According to Beijing No.1 Intermediate Court and the final judgement of the People’s High Court of Beijing, and the decision of TRAB is upheld. Because the respondent didn’t change the recordal or transact the cancellation procedure according to the article 11.1 of Intellectual Property Customs Protection Regulation of the People’s Republic of China, and posed bad influence on the applicant’s legal imported goods, the intellectual property customs protection recordal with no. T2012-24812 has been cancelled according to the article 11.1 of Intellectual Property Customs Protection Regulation of the People’s Republic of China.

Conclusion:

In this case, two sides spent much time on fighting for the trademark right, from the first instance to the final instance of the People’s High Court of Beijing. However, success does not mean fix all problems, because the protection and defense of the intellectual property are multiple dimensions and multiple-aspects. The Customs’ recordal protection is quite easy to be ignored, however, it will pose quite serious influence, we need to pay close attention to it.