百一精选商标案例（9）

Foridomcases of Trademark（9）

此为百一知识产权的商标复审成功案例，供您参考。

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

复审策略及理由Review strategy and reason：

1、 申请商标与引证商标不近似

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

（1）从组合整体来看：

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

申请人商标是中文“前滩”、英文“NEWBUND”和数字“31”的组合，引证商标是由中文“外滩二十二号”、英文“Bund”和数字“22”以及图形部分组合而成，就构成元素来看，二者之间差别明显。以普通消费者的一般注意力而言，引证商标首先作为识别区分的是其非常醒目的图形建筑，而申请商标并没有图形。

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.

引证商标的四种元素紧密结合，构成了不可分割的一个商标整体。而申请人的商标是简单的英文数字的结合，整体视觉感官差距非常明显，难以将其认定为近似商标。

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）从商标字形来看：

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

申请人商标是中文“前滩”、英文“NEWBUND”和数字“31”的组合，引证商标的英文、数字部分是“BUND”和“22”。

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".

根据商标审查及审理标准“四、商标近似审查”第八款：“商标首字母发音以及字形明显不同，或者整体含义不同，使商标整体区别明显，不易使相关公众对商品或服务的来源产生混淆的不判为近似商标”。因此，“NEWBUND”和“Bund”二者为不近似部分。另外，数字部分“31”和“22”也同样是区别明显的部分，因此“31前滩NEWBUND”和“Bund22”区别非常明显，并不构成近似。

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）从商标呼叫、含义来看：

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

申请人的商标为“31前滩NEWBUND”，引证商标英文数字为“Bund19”，申请商标相较引证商标多了一词“New”的发音，并且“19”和“31”发音也不存在谐音和相似的发音，差别非常明显。并且按照中国人的辨识方式，会直接称呼引证商标的中文部分“外滩二十二号”，而NEWBUND31作为一个臆造词，与其含义上无法形成联想。因此，二者在呼叫、含义方面，差别明显，不易产生混淆。

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.

决定Decision：

初步审定

PreliminaryApproval

商评字[2020]第0000185188号

S. P. Zi [2020] No. 0000185188