The opposee “Shenzhen Jinglang Technology co. LTD”rush-registered 10 marks relevant to the mark“RESPILON”of the company RESPILON Group s.r.o. from Czech. And the 10 marks are listed below:

Mark “” with No.22721824 (class 10)

Mark “with No.22722613(class 24)

Mark “”with No.22722805(class 35)

Mark “”with No.22722728 （class 40）

Mark “”with No.22723195(class 42)

Mark “”with No.22721472 (class 10)

Mark “”with No.22722310(class 24)

Mark “”with No.22722789 (class 35)

Mark “”with No.22722974(class 40)

Mark “”with No.22723131(class 42)

The opponent claimed that “RESPILON” is a mark which was prior used on products including “a mask protecting the respiratory tract”and the opposee was a dealer of the brand “RESPILON” in China. But without authorization, the opposee applied for the registration of several“RESPILON”marks, so the opponent entrusted our company to file opposition against the above mentioned 10 trademarks.

After the effective communication between the attorney of Gaowo and the opponent, we suggest that the opponent file the relevant evidences after we have a better idea of the case. And under the guidance of the attorney of our company, the opponent provided evidences including the power of attorney for the opposee, orders and invoices, the pictures on exhibitions and the emails between the CEO of the opponent and the opposee.

According to the reasons and facts, the trademark office thinks :

The “RESPILON”mark of the opponent is strongly creative. And the above mentioned evidences can prove that it is the opponent who prior used the “RESPILON”mark on the products including“a mask protecting the respiratory tract”. And as a brand dealer of the opponent in China, the opposee should know the existence of the “RESPILON”mark of the opponent. And the applied mark””by the opposee is identical to the “RESPILON”mark of the opponent, and the opposee’s mark “”completely contains the “RESPILON”mark of the opponent. And no different or new meanings were added to the applied marks by the opposee. Besides, the designated products or services of above-mentioned 10 marks in class 10,24,40 are closely related to the products of the used mark of the opponent in function, use, sales channel and consumers. So the opposee , without authorization of the opponent, applied for the opposed marks on similar products or services, which constitutes the situation stipulated by Article 15 of Trademark Law.

What’s more, the fact that the opposee applied for the 10 opposed marks shows the subjective intention of the opposee to copy and plagiarize others’ marks. So the act of the opposee violated the normal trademark management orders and was harmful to the market environment of fair competition, and violated the principle of good faith. So the 10 opposed marks should not be approved to be registered according to the regulations of Article 7,Article 15,Article 30 and Article 35 of Trademark Law.