Hereis one of our successful cases of trademark review, for your reference.

Review strategy and reason：

1. Theapplied-for trademark is not similar to the cited trademark.

 (1) From the perspective of the whole combinationof the two trademarks:

The applied-for trademark is acombination of Chinese "前滩", English “NEWBUND”and the number "31". While the cited trademark is composed of Chinese"外滩二十二号", English "Bund", the number"22" and graphic parts. In terms of composition elements, there areobvious differences between the two trademarks. In terms of the generalattention of consumers, what most distinguishes the cited trademark is itsstriking graphic architecture, while the applied-for trademark has no graphics.

The four elements of the citedtrademark are closely combined to form an indivisible whole of the trademark,while the applied-for trademark is a simple combination of English texts andnumbers, which lead that the two trademarks look obviously different from eachother. Therefore, it is difficult to determine that the applied-for trademarkand the cited trademark are similar.

(2) Fromthe perspective of the font of the two trademarks:

The applied-for trademark is acombination of Chinese "前滩", English “NEWBUND”and the number "31", while the English and numerical parts of thecited trademark are "BUND" and "22".

According to paragraph 8 of the Article4 “Trademark Similarity Review” of the Standards for Trademark Examination andTrial: "If the pronunciation and font of trademark initials are obviouslydifferent, or the overall meaning is different, which makes the overalldifference of trademarks obvious, and it is not easy for the relevant public toconfuse the source of goods or services, the trademarks shall not be deemed as similar". Therefore, "New Bund" and "Bund" are not similarparts. In addition, the difference between the numerical parts "31"and "22" is also distinctive. Therefore, there are obvious differencesbetween "31前滩NEWBUND " and "Bund22",and the two trademarks are not similar.

(3) From the perspective of thepronunciation and meaning of the two trademarks

The applied-for trademarkis "31前滩NEWBUND",and the cited trademark is "Bund19". Compared with the citedtrademark, there is more pronunciation of the word "New" in the applied-fortrademark, and there is no homophony or similar pronunciation between"19" and "31" in Chinese, so the difference is veryobvious. Moreover, in general, Chinese will directly address the citedtrademark its Chinese part "外滩二十二号(Bund No.22)",while “NEWBUND31”, as a fabricated word, cannot be associated with the citedtrademark in terms of meaning. Therefore, there are obvious differences betweenthe two trademarks in terms of pronunciation and meaning, so it is not easy toproduce confusion among the public.

Decision：

PreliminaryApproval      （S. P. Zi [2020] No. 0000185188）