Df Chemical Int’L Trading (Shanghai) Limited Being Success In Opposition Against Crocodile Garments Limited For Trademark “Corex”
2013-04-18 15:11:18   Source：   Hit：

Case Information

Preliminary examination & approval No. 6236510

Trademark Gazette No.1195

Disputed trademark: CROC

Opponent: Crocodile Garments Limited

Respondent：DF Chemical Int’l Trading (Shanghai) Limited

Attorney：Has represented the respondent in opposition defense.

Case Overview

DF Chemical Int’l Trading (Shanghai) Limited filed an application for registration to the State Administration for Industry and Trademark Office of China on 23 August 2007 for “CROC” (figure 1) in Class 1 in “fatty acids, oleic acid, stearic acid, glycerine for industrial purposes, surface-active chemical agents, esters, aliphatic amine, quaternary ammonium salt, fatty alcohol, fatty acid methyl ester”. “CROC” (trademark No.6236510) has been preliminarily approved and public announced on the Trademark Gazette No. 1195. Attorney has submitted statement of defense against opposition by Crocodile Garments Limited by the due date.

Opposition grounds

The opposed trademark “CROC” was similar to the English part of the trademark “CROCODILE plus graphics of crocodile” (figure 2) owned by opponent’s company. In addition, the opponent claimed their trademark was well-known trademark to the public in china. Therefore the preliminary approval and announcement of the opposed trademark shall be revoked. 

Respondent statement

I. The two trademarks with different meanings;

II. Obvious differences exist in pronunciation and appearance.

III. Numbers of trademarks applied for registering in domestic by opponent have been rejected and are still in the reexamination pending state. So the reason alleged their trademark to be a well-known trademark lacks factual and legal basis. 

IV. Respondent did not copy with malicious intent.

Decision of opposition

According to the statement of facts and reasons, with evidences provide by the both parties, the Office concluded that the opposed trademark “CROC” was not similar to the opponent’s trademarks, which were earlier applied and preliminarily approved and published. The opponent claimed its trademarks were well-known, and the marks were intimated by the opposed party with insufficient evidence. Therefore, the opposition was not established. In accordance Article 33 of the Trademark Law, the No. 6236510 trademark “CROC” was approved.

Figure 1 Opposed trademark

  Figure 2 Opponent’s trademarks