"Changan" Is Gone.

The applicant, Changan automobile limited liability company, applies the 1261951st "Changan" commercial standard (hereinafter referred to as the citation mark two) on its trademark No. 236662nd registered on the twelfth category of mini vehicle products (hereinafter referred to as the C1 trademark) and the 1261951st type "Changan" registered on the commodities of eleventh types of air conditioning equipment (including cold and warm room equipment), and applies the dispute to the 1138936th "Changan" trademark (hereinafter referred to as the "dispute" trademark) registered on eleventh commodities such as air conditioning devices.

The main reasons for the dispute resolution are: the designated trademark of the dispute trademark is "blow drying equipment" and so on, which is similar to the quoted trademark two "dry ventilation, air conditioning equipment" and so on in terms of usage and raw materials.

Two although the trademarks are different in type, they all use the name "Changan" and belong to the same trademark on similar commodities, which easily causes consumers' misidentification and market confusion.

In addition, the applicant has registered the No. 236062nd "Changan" trademark in 1995 and has prior rights. Therefore, the dispute trademark is requested to be revoked.

It is considered that the trademark should be designated as the air conditioning equipment (including the cold and warm room equipment) and so on, which is similar to the designated commodity air conditioner used in the dispute trademark.

The dispute trademark "Changan" and the citation mark two "Changan" use the same words, the dispute trademark and the citation mark two have constituted similar trademarks used on similar commodities.

The reasons for the dispute are established.

And the respondent has clearly stated that the "Changan" trademark should be waiver, and the disputed trademark should be revoked.

The No. 236662nd "Changan" trademark quoted by the applicant is designated as a "mini car", which is not a similar commodity with the designated trademark of the dispute trademark. The dispute trademark and the citation mark do not constitute a similar trademark on the similar commodity. Therefore, the jury shall not consider the applicant's claim.

The judge finally ruled in accordance with the law: the applicant disputes the registration of the 1138936th "Changan" trademark registered by the applicant on eleventh types of air conditioning equipment and so on, and the 1138936th "Changan" registered trademark is revoked.