Trademark Information

Disputed trademark:ironmaxx(Reg. No.13285306)
Designated Goods/services(Class 30):3001 coffee-based beverages; 3002 tea*; 3003, 3004 sugar*; 3005 honey; 3006, 3010 cereal-based snack food; 3006, 3007, 3009, 3012 Food made from grain flour; 3008 flour; 3011 soybean milk; 3013 ice cream;3016 condiments.

Case Introduction

Mr. WANG (hereinafter referred to as the "trademark registrant") was approved to register trademark No. 13285306 "IronmaXX" (" Review Trademark ") on January 07, 2015, and approved to be used on the goods of class 30 above. Ironmaxx Nutritional Products Co.,Ltd.("Ironmaxx company", Gaowo’s lawyer is the litigation agent of the company) filed an application for non-use revocation of the trademark。The CNIPA decided to cancel the reviewed trademark. The trademark registrant refused to accept the decision and initiated a review. The CNIPA believed that "Evidence 2 (evidence of handwritten receipt) shall not be recognized by us in the absence of relevant invoices and other valid evidence" and ruled that the reviewed trademark shall be revoked. The trademark registrant refused to accept and filed a lawsuit.
After the administrative proceedings started, the lawyers of Gaowo Law Firm, acting on behalf of Ironmaxx, made a detailed analysis and cross-examination of the evidence of the trademark registrant, and believed that the authenticity of the handwritten receipt evidence was difficult to determine without the evidence of relevant invoices and other valid evidence. If this kind of evidence was accepted, it would have an impact on the trademark non-use revocation system of our country, and may empty the trademark non-use revocation system.

The court of first instance found that: ......The food sales contracts, receipts and copies of product packaging pictures signed by the plaintiff and various major partners are not supported by relevant invoices and other evidence. The "proof" is weak and cannot prove that the plaintiff has a real transaction relationship with the disputed trademark on the approved commodities.......To sum up, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff fails to form a clear and complete evidence chain, which is insufficient to prove that the disputed trademark has been used for real, open and effective commercial purposes on the approved commodities within the designated period, and the relevant determination of the sued decision is not improper.

Gaowo’s Comments

It is the company's obligation to issue formal machine invoices. Do not issue a formal machine to type the invoice, but issue a handwritten receipt, which is suspected of tax evasion.In addition, the signature time of personal handwritten receipt is usually difficult to verify, and the authenticity is difficult to determine. Therefore, in the case of non-use revocation, if there is no other evidence with strong authenticity, handwritten receipt will not be accepted. This also reminds the majority of companies to pay attention to preserving the evidence of the use of trademarks, especially formal machine invoices.

Epilogue

Gaowo is a professional legal service organization engaged in intellectual property agency business. If you encounter problems in intellectual property, you can choose us to carry out intellectual property layout and planning for you. We will do our best to protect your intellectual property!