The above news first hit my friends for a day, then a friend sent it to me in a private message, and I finally opened it to read it carefully.

The feeling after reading it was a long sigh.

Looking at this story from the perspective of a trademark person, the content is not considered new, the comments are in error, the case is really old and the logic is hard to understand. The writers seem to know neither the trademark profession nor the quality of reporting objective facts required by the journalistic profession. Leveraging on Tencent's big name, eyeballs are attracted, but unfortunately incorrect ideas are also spread.

First of all, the title is inaccurate. What do you mean by "Penguin graphic trademark no longer belongs to Tencent completely"? There are many trademarks registered with penguins as graphics, and many registrants, and the penguin graphic trademark has never fully belonged to Tencent. Even if Tencent's Penguin graphic trademark has established a close correspondence with Tencent due to its unique design and widespread promotional use, the Penguin graphic trademark No. 1956795 referred to in this news article is still a registered trademark and still belongs to Tencent.

Because this trademark is registered in the field of advertising, business management consulting (consultancy), business professional consulting; In this case, the registration was revoked for only six services: advertising, business management consulting (consultancy), business professional consulting, business information, sales promotion (for others), and accounting. The registration of the mark remains valid for four services: employment agency, computerized document management, computerized database information systemization, and computerized entry services. To be precise, it was not the mark that was revoked, but the registration of the mark in respect of the six services mentioned above.

The news also tries to clarify this issue: "It should be noted that the cancelled trademarks are limited to the above-mentioned scope, and Tencent still enjoys the right to use the trademark in other registered fields. "Unfortunately, the wording here is still wrong; what Tencent enjoys is the exclusive right to use the trademark, and as for use, unregistered trademarks can also be used.

The news item quotes the decision of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board partially aside, there are no errors as well as there should be. But a statement after the decision letter has me really worried. Here's what the news said: "In fact, after a trademark has been registered, the right holder does not enjoy exclusive rights in all cases and can be deprived of them in certain circumstances. Article 44 of the Trademark Law stipulates that if a person ceases to use the trademark for three consecutive years, the Trademark Office shall order a period of correction or revoke the registered trademark. "

Article 44 of the Trademark Law referred to here refers to the Trademark Law before its amendment in 2013, while Article 49 of the new Trademark Law, which has been in force for nearly four years, provides for three-year non-use revocation as follows: "If a registered trademark becomes the common name of the goods for which it is approved for use or is not used for three consecutive years without justifiable reasons, any unit or individual may apply to the Trademark Office for revocation of the registered trademark. "The new law eliminates the provision that the Trademark Office shall order corrections within a certain period of time.

Although it is not required that the person writing the news knows trademark law, it is always appropriate to consult the relevant professionals before an article is launched, to clarify the law, to make the content accurate, and to disseminate the relevant legal provisions being implemented.

The news item cites another example: "There are few examples of similar Tencent Penguin trademarks being revoked. In 2012, the trademark of the Japanese comic character "Crayon Shin" held by a Chinese company was cancelled by the COMAC because the trademark had been dormant and unused for three consecutive years. "That's a pretty remote case, and it seems that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board hasn't revoked another registered trademark since then. But the fact is that from 2012 to now, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board has heard tens of thousands of trademark revocation cases for three years of non-use, and every working day at least one trademark registration is revoked. The Trademark Office revoked an even greater number of trademark registrations.

In the eyes of trademark owners, it is all too common for a registered trademark to be revoked because it has not been used for three consecutive years without just cause. I have tried several such cases myself, and have revoked a number of trademark registrations. Even if it's true that three-year non-use trademark revocation cases are a novelty in the eyes of newsmakers, why use a six-year-old example when you can find the latest cases with a little digging through the public rulings on the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board website. It is not uncommon for large companies to register thousands and thousands of trademarks, and it is not uncommon for a few to be revoked from time to time.

As for the last paragraph of the news: "As the country attaches importance to intellectual property rights at the strategic level, as well as various comprehensive factors such as competition awareness and market promotion, everyone's awareness of trademark protection has generally increased, and the withdrawal of three has begun to increase year by year and slowly enter the public eye. ", I really don't understand the logic of how increased awareness of trademark protection directly leads to the start of yearly incremental withdrawals, which seems like a bit too big of a jump. I know for a fact that the increase in revocation cases is due to the fact that it is difficult to obtain registration for new applications, so they have to apply for revocation of earlier identical and similar registered marks. But it's true that the issue of trademark revocation III has entered the public eye. In that sense, the news piece always has a little more to offer.

Although I've seen many news articles over the years that misread and misrepresent trademark knowledge, including a recent story that misrepresented the trademark examination cycle as the trademark registration cycle, each time I read it, it makes my heart hard. Trademarks, as the legal protection of brands, actually concern every brand builder, and the stakeholders can be in the hundreds of millions. There is no telling what effect the widespread dissemination of such news, which lacks accuracy, will have on these people.

All I can say to myself is probably just one more thing: keep writing popular law articles and influence one more person.

But my power is really small. Still sighing.

Recommended>>
1、What Factors Determine Internet Personnel Salaries
2、jfinal Immortality Series Extending CacheInterceptor to support Redis caching
3、Recommending system stuff
4、Common machine learning and data mining related terms time to recharge
5、How to configure a Gateway node for HDFS in a specified directory in a crossOS version outside of a CDH cluster in a Kerberos environment

已发送

发送中