“丝芙兰”阻击“詩芙籣”首战告捷

　　In a first-instance decision, Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court hands a favor of French company Sephora, denying registration of the trademark 詩芙籣and Sephola filed by a person surnamed Chen on grounds of similarity with Sephora and infringing Sephora ’s prior rights of trade name.

　　On December 2005, the person Chen filed for the No. 5078922 trademark詩芙籣and Sephola on Class 3, commodities of cosmetics for animals.

　　Sephora challenged Chen’s application during the announcement period, but was denied. Sephora then brought the case to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) under the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) for re-examination.

　　TRAB held that the two marks were not used on the same class and would not cause confusion among the consumers. Meanwhile, the evidences provided by Sephora failed to prove Sephora has gained popularity or high reputation on commodities of cosmetics for animals before the date Chen applied.

　　Disgruntled Sephora filed a lawsuit. The court held that the spelling and pronunciation of 詩芙籣and Sephola were similar with Sephora and its Chinese translation, and the products of the two marks were also similar. Meanwhile, Sephora has invested a lot on commercial propaganda and has gained high reputation globally. Based on these, the court held that similarity was constituted and Chen’s marks have infringed Sephora’s.

　　The court then revoked Chen’s trademarks and ordered TRAB to review the case. （by Baiou）

　　近日，法国丝芙兰股份有限公司（下称丝芙兰公司）因认为他人申请注册在动物用化妆品等商品上的“詩芙籣Sephola”商标，与其在先核准注册的“丝芙兰”“SEPHORA”及“诗芙华”商标构成类似商品上的近似商标，同时侵犯了其在先商号权。日前，北京市第一中级人民法院作出一审判决，认定上述“詩芙籣Sephola”商标与丝芙兰公司的在先商标构成类似商品上的近似商标，同时侵犯了丝芙兰公司的在先商号权，不应予以核准注册。

　　据了解，2005年12月，广东省自然人陈某提出第5078922号“詩芙籣Sephola”商标（下称被异议商标）的注册申请，指定使用在第3类动物用化妆品等商品上。

　　在被异议商标通过初审并进行公告后，丝芙兰公司提出商标异议申请，但未获得支持。随后，丝芙兰公司向中国国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会（下称商评委）申请复审。

　　商评委认定，被异议商标指定使用的商品与引证商标核定使用的商品不属于类似商品，与引证商标共存不易使相关公众混淆。同时，丝芙兰公司未提交证据证明在被异议商标申请注册日前，在动物用化妆品或与之类似的商品上，其使用“詩芙籣Sephola”或与之近似商号并产生一定知名度，因此被异议商标未侵犯丝芙兰公司的商号权。据此，商评委裁定被异议商标予以核准注册。丝芙兰公司不服，遂向北京市第一中级人民法院提起行政诉讼。

　　法院经审理认为，被异议商标在上述商品上的使用易造成相关公众的混淆误认。被异议商标标志与“丝芙兰”商号文字构成、呼叫近似，丝芙兰公司设立的关联公司在中国经营商品与被异议商标指定使用的商品属于类似商品，且丝芙兰公司经过大量商业宣传已经在被异议商标申请注册日之前就已经在全球具有较高的市场知名度，因此被异议商标的申请注册侵犯了丝芙兰公司的在先商号权。

　　据此，法院一审判决撤销商评委原裁定结果，并判令商评委重新作出裁定。（白 鸥）