The trademark information: with No.8467866

The focus of controversy of this case

Whether the evidences submitted by SANJIANGSHENGDA can prove the proposed mark was used openly, legally and effectively within the period of 2011.7.23-2014.7.22.

Details of the case:
Administrative process:
The National Intellectual Property Administration of the People’s Republic of China (CNIPA) canceled the registration of the mark”Vizit” with No.8467866(the proposed mark) filed by SANJIANGSHENGDA based on that the CNIPA thinks that the evidences provided by the applicant of the proposed mark are not valid.

First trial, second trial stage

Dissatisfied with the sued decision,SANJIANGSHENGDA filed a lawsuit before the Beijing IP Court.And during the first trial, SANJAINGSHENGDA submitted the business registration information of SANJAINGSHENGDA company and XIAMEN SANJAINGSHENGDA,some acquisition contracts and customs declaration form for export goods of XIAMEN SANJAINGSHENGDA company from 2013 to 2014.In the opinion of the court of first trial, the evidence on record sometimes did not provide the original, sometimes the time indicated is not within the specified period, sometimes the proposed trademark is not shown, so the evidences can not form a complete evidence chain to prove that the SANJAINGSHENGDA has used the proposed mark openly ,truly and legally within the specified time limit. So the judgment of first trial rejected the lawsuit request of SANJAINGSHENGDA.
Dissatisfied with the judgment of first trial,SANJIANGSHENGDA filed an appeal before Beijing higher people's court.During the second trial,

SANJIANGSHENGDA company submitted the entrusted declaration agreement for the export products with the special seal for declaration documents of Xiamen customs on it. AND in the opinion of the court of second trial,the evidence cannot be solely used as evidence that the proposed trademark has entered the circulation market in mainland China and has been used in a real, legal and effective way in the absence of other evidences, even though the time shown on the evidence submitted is within the specified period and the proposed mark is shown on the evidence, and the export products are the approved products of the proposed mark.So the judgment of second instance rejected the lawsuit request of SANJAINGSHENGDA.

Retrial phase
During the retrial phase,SANJIANGSHENGDA submitted evidences including

customs declaration form for export goods of SANJIANGSHENGDA company from 2013 to 2014, the warehouse entry notice and warehouse entry form, and the remittance receipt of industrial bank and other related evidences. And the Supreme Court entrusted the higher people's court of Fujian province to verify with the Xiamen customs that the Xiamen customs seal affixed to the 2013-2014 customs declaration form for export goods submitted by XIAMEN SANJAINGSHENGDA company was true and valid. Besides, the Supreme Court ascertained that XIAMEN SANJAINGSHENGDA company had submitted the "statement of circumstances" to the court of first trial during the first trial, saying that the original of the "authorization letter for the use of registered trademark" dated August 14, 2011 could not be presented to the court because it was required to provide to the manufacturer. Given that SANJIANGSHENGDA company is a branch of XIAMEN SANJIANGSHENGDA company, it is reasonable to authorize XIAMEN SANJIANGSHENGDA company to use its trademark, the Supreme Court recognized the authenticity of the evidence. According to the customs declaration forms of import and export goods in 2013-2014, and combined with the corresponding commercial invoice, packing list, sales contract and other documents, it can prove that XIAMEN SANJIANGSHENGDA exported the products bearing the the proposed mark to foreign countries. Although the products are exported to foreign countries, they are manufactured in mainland China, which is clearly using the proposed mark actively and has the real intention of using this trademark. And the above mentioned evidences can form a complete evidence chain to prove that the proposed mark was used openly, legally, truly and effectively on the approved goods within the specified period.

In conclusion, the supreme people's court made a judgment to cancel the administrative judgment issued by the courts of first trial and second trial and the decision of the review to cancellation made by CNIPA.