Trademark Review Case- The Success in the Review of SHDS Trademark Opposition

文章摘要 本文通过一起商标异议复审案件,阐述了通用名称缺乏显著性的商标法适用问题。日本投资企业试图将航运业广泛使用的“HDS”(Hot Delivery Service)及“SHDS”(Super Hot Delivery Service)缩写注册为商标,以独占使用。锦江航运在律师指导下,成功收集证据证明该术语已被行业、政府及媒体长期作为通用名称使用,不具备区分商品来源的功能。商标局及商标评审委员会依据《商标法》第十一条第二款和第三十三条,先后驳回了“HDS”和“SHDS”的注册申请。本案对行业通用术语的商标保护边界具有重要实务参考价值。

“HDS” is the abbreviation for “Hot Delivery Service”, meaning the fast delivery service based on punctual departure, arrival and picking of goods. “SHDS” is the abbreviation for “Super Hot Delivery Service”. Since the start of this century, fast delivery service had emerged in near-sea shipping line between China and Japan. “HDS” and “SHDS” started to be used to refer to the delivery service ever since and gradually became accepted as a common term used by all parties.


However a Japanese-invested company secretly filed an application of trademark registration regarding “HDS” and ”SHDS” with the Trademark Bureau of the State Administration of Industry and Commerce, in an attempt to take the commonly used term for its own. After the Trademark Bureau accepted its application, the company claimed that it had obtained the exclusive right to the two terms and the other companies were banned from using them. Jinjiang Shipping is one of the major companies in the industry, whose business would be severely affected if not allowed to use “HDS “ and ”SHDS”. Therefore, Mr. Yang was engaged to file a trademark opposition with the Trademark Bureau.


Mr. Yang guided and assisted Jinjiang Shipping in the collection of evidence proving that a large number of shipping operators with itself included had long used “HDS” as a common term and that the government, industry association and the media had acknowledged it as the common term for fast delivery service. Evidence was also provided to prove that foreign government and media also accept ‘HDS’ as a common term. Therefore, the “HDS” as applied was a common term used in the industry as an abbreviation of “Hot Delivery Service”. The application shall be denied on the ground that it lacked distinctiveness. Mr. Yang further pointed out in the statement of trademark opposition that the registration category within which the trademark application was filed was the same as “HDS” which was used as a common term. If the trademark was successfully registered and used, the interest of the whole shipping industry as well as the opponent would be damaged. Since the application of “SHDS” is similar to “HDS”, it shall also be denied.


After hearing the case, Trademark Bureau held that “HDS” was the abbreviation of “Hot Delivery Service”, used by the shipping industry as a common term. The trademark under application therefore lacked distinctiveness. According to Clause 2 Article 11 and Article 33 of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China, the application was denied. But the application of “SHSD” was sustained, which might be because this case was examined by another official and relied on the result of examination on “HDS”.


Jinjiang Shipping therefore engaged Mr. Yang to file a review application with the Trademark Review Committee , in which it was emphasized that “HDS” was a common term lacking distinctiveness and whose application was denied. “SHDS” was similar to “HDS”. If allowed to be registered, the operators in the industry would be faced with tremendous legal barriers and suffer great loss. Therefore, it shall be denied. The Trademark Review Committee held that “SHDS” was used in shipping business, connoting that the service had a common term and could not distinguish the source of the service provided. The application was therefore denied.

杨春宝一级律师简介

杨春宝一级律师,大成上海高级合伙人、资本市场部主任、国资基金研究中心主任,大成中国区私募基金专业带头人、科技与文化法律研究中心联合牵头人。执业30余年,长期从事私募基金、投融资、并购重组法律服务,尤其对对赌研究颇深且具有非常丰富的实战经验,并专注于金融机构股权投资业务。2004年起多次入选The Legal 500"私募基金"和"公司与商业"等境内外各类律师榜单,代理的中国法院首例适用外国法律审理外国公司的董事损害小股东权益纠纷案入选上海高院发布的《上海法院域外法查明典型案例》和威科先行"要案头条"。入选上海涉外法律人才库、上海市司法局鼎新法治人才库、上海国有企业改制法律顾问团,具有上市公司独立董事任职资格,系多家知名高校的兼职教授或兼职研究生导师及上海市商务委跨国经营人才培训班讲师。出版《私募股权投资基金风险防控操作实务》等16本投融资法律专著。了解更多

常见法律问题

什么是通用名称商标?

通用名称是行业或公众约定俗成使用的特定商品或服务名称,如本案中的HDS。通用名称缺乏显著特征,依法不得注册为商标。

商标被驳回后如何救济?

当事人对商标局驳回决定不服,可以在法定期限内向商标评审委员会申请驳回复审,复审仍不成立可提起行政诉讼。

如何在商标异议中证明通用名称?

需收集行业经营者、政府机构、行业协会、媒体等长期公开使用该术语的证据,证明其已成为行业内通用表述,不具备区分来源功能。

以上内容仅供参考,不构成法律意见。如需专业法律服务,请联系杨春宝一级律师:chambers.yang@dentons.cn

  • 本站声明:本站所载之法律论文、法律评论、案例、法律咨询等,除非另有注明,著作权人均为站长杨春宝高级律师本人。欢迎其他网站链接,但是,未经书面许可,不得擅自摘编、转载。引用及经许可转载时均应注明作者和出处"法律桥",并链接本站。本站网址:https://lawyerbridge.com/。
  •  
  •         本站所有内容(包括法律咨询、法律法规)仅供参考,不构成法律意见,本站不对资料的完整性和时效性负责。您在处理具体法律事务时,请洽询有资质的律师。本站将努力为广大网友提供更好的服务,但不对本站提供的任何免费服务作出正式的承诺。本站所载投稿文章,其言论不代表本站观点,如需使用,请与原作者联系,版权归原作者所有。

发表回复