Dias Philips fly a few degrees against

Fought for six years to two letters

The court ultimately ruled that fly Dias wins, Wen enterprises can work in just ways since the use of the trademark "PHIDIAS"

"PHIDIAS" and "PHILIPS", the only two letter difference, it is this two letter difference, caused an 6 year trademark battle.

In 2005, Philips company to the review committee of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce for the revocation of the trademark "PHIDIAS" trademark, in August 27, 2009, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board ruled, revoked on the controversial "PHIDIAS" trademark. The same year, Fiat diss against the ruling, lodge an administrative lawsuit in the Beijing first intermediate people's court, the hospital after the trial, the revocation of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board ruling.

Since then, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board against the decision, appeal to the Beijing Municipal Higher People's court. Recently, the Institute to dismiss the appeal, upheld the original decision. This means that, Feiya dees can work in just ways with "PHIDIAS" trademark.

One, Philips attack, "PHIDIAS" trademark is revoked

Dias (Zhejiang) Electric Appliance Manufacturing Co., Ltd. is a home appliance is located in Longwan District of Haicheng switch manufacturing company, founded in 1999.

In November 30, 2001, the company flew Dias to the State Administration of Trademark Bureau of industry and Commerce filed in ninth categories, specify the use of "electric switch, amplifier, electronic tubes and other commodities; registered trademark" special period from February 21, 2003 to February 20, 2013. The eleventh category of "lighting equipment and apparatus; fluorescent tubes and so on; trademark registered trademark" special period from November 14, 2005 to November 13, 2015.

Registered "PHIDIAS" trademark, flying Dias rapid development of the company's business. The company's general manager Lin Yongfu said, "a few years ago the company's business volume is really a kind of a year, sales in 2005 has reached one billion yuan." However, make Lin Yongfu unexpectedly, in the development of the company's heyday, suffered a trademark lawsuit a field before and after 6 years.

In July 15, 2005, Philips companies for the "PHIDIAS" trademark to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board proposed revocation of registration. Philips company thinks, "PHIDIAS" and "PHILIPS" are no meaning of foreign trademark, the alphabetical order, the whole design and pronunciation approximation, specify the use of commodities for the same or similar goods, constitute one and the same or similar goods of similar trademark, "the relevant provisions of the trademark law PHIDIAS" illegal. And "PHILIPS" trademark in the market enjoy a high reputation, has been known to the general public, "PHIDIAS" for its trademark copy and imitation, the company made the economic interests and the commercial credit losses, such acts of unfair competition, the company's business activities Philips confusion, requesting revocation of the trademark "PHIDIAS".

In December 7, 2005, the company flew Dias to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Committee submitted the relevant respondent, called "PHILIPS" trademark is a plain name, itself does not have a significant, "PHIDIAS" as the "flying Dias" English homophonic, besides the two trademarks in the English alphabet, pronunciation, the overall visual aspects are not the same. At the same time, flying Dias also provide advertising in CCTV and other related media, promote the brand image of the evidence.

Although provide relevant evidence to fly Dias, but in 2009 August, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board or to cancel the "PHIDIAS" ruling.

In August 27, 2009, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to cancel the "PHIDIAS" ruling.

Two, flew Dias to appeal, after a trial method "should not withdraw"

Within the legal time limit, flying the Dias to the Beijing first intermediate people's court to bring an administrative lawsuit, corrective action request the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board ruling. The court accepting the case on September 21, 2009, and in December 16th the same year held a public hearing.

After the court that, judging the two similar trademarks or not should to trademark glyph, readers, such as whether the meaning, so that the relevant public sources of goods confusion as the standard, should be judged with the specific circumstances of the case. The disputed trademark "PHIDIAS" and "PHILIPS" are cited trademark of foreign trademark, China relevant public calls to foreign trademark and the overall visual effect for identification, while the two trademark letters only the middle two letters there is a difference, but the difference in pronunciation, the overall visual effect obviously two trademarks, trademark coexistence in vivo with two a or similar goods, Chinese relevant public does not produce confusion and misidentification of the sources of goods. Therefore, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board recognized trademark dispute with the cited trademark in similar goods constitute a similar trademark, the hospital to correct errors identified.

Finally, the court revoked the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board ruling, and request the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board on Philips for revocation of the trademark "PHIDIAS" proposed revocation registration application to re make the dispute adjudication.

Three, the Trademark Review and adjudication will appeal, the court upheld the original temperature Qisheng out

Due to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board the verdict of the first trial, from within the statutory time limit and the Beijing Municipal Higher People's Court of appeal. The Academy in February 28, 2011 after the acceptance of the application, shall form a collegial panel to hear the case. The 6 year, the school made the appeal, upheld the original verdict.

"Get the judgment, one night I excited sleep bad, although the process is very painful, but I never thought of giving up, we're holding gas." Lin Yongfu said, Wenzhou, Beijing do not know how many times to run back and forth, responding to the data with a big box.

The case eventually win, but Lin Yongfu said, the lawsuit against