Demandant: Beijing Wanmen Education Technology Co., LTD., Room 1003-5, 10th Floor, Building 4, 11 Changchun Bridge Road, Haidian District, Beijing.

Defendant: National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), No.6, West Tucheng Road, Jimen Bridge, Haidian District, Beijing.

The defendant decided to reject the application for trademark registration in the reexamination service on the basis that the litigation trademark violated Article 30 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, which took effect in 2019.

The demandent claimed that, 1. The trademark No. 11221252 (referred to as the "cited trademark") has been revoked due to three consecutive years of non-use, and shall not hinder the application for registration of the trademark in dispute. To sum up, the court is requested to revoke the decision of the defendant in accordance with the law and order the defendant to make a new decision, and the defendant shall bear the litigation costs of the case.

The defendant argued that the facts were clearly ascertained, the law was applied correctly, and the procedure was lawful. It requested that the demandent's claim be dismissed.

After trial, the court found that: the cited trademark has been decided to cancel the registration of all services due to the three consecutive years of not using the revocation procedure, the revocation decision has taken effect, and published in the 1692 revocation notice.

The above facts are supported by the trademark files in litigation and cited, the trademark rejection notice, the trademark rejection review application, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff and the court record.

The Court holds that, in view of the fact that the cited trademark in this case has been revoked because it has not been used on all commodities for three consecutive years, the right barrier of litigation trademark registration in the lawsuit has changed and has affected the trial result of the case, the court hereby revokes the decision of the lawsuit. The defendant should re-examine and make a decision on the basis of new facts, but the case fee is still borne by the demandant. In conclusion, according to the provisions of article seventy of the "Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" in the first (1) and (2), the Supreme People's Court on the trial of trademark license approval provisions on some issues of administrative cases in the provisions of article 28, our decision is as follows: First, the revocation of the defendant to the National Intellectual property Administration of the business review word [2020] no. 6733 on the no. 35009713 is rejected "万门" trademark re-examination decision ". Second, the defendant, the the National Intellectual property Administration shall make a new decision.