ONLY, a well-known costume brand, recently failed in a trademark dispute. Beijing Higher People’s Court made the final decision and sustained the ONLY trademark in question and concluded the three-year dispute. Years later, in June 2013, ONLY’s authorized brand operator Denmark Aktieselskabet AF 21. November 2001 company challenged the ONLY trademark and seek reversal to SAIC on grounds of no usage for three consecutive years. However, its request was denied.
The Denmark company then brought the case to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) under SAIC, which also sustained the mark in question in March 2015.The disgruntled Denmark company filed an administrative lawsuit to Beijing IPR Court. In the first- instance decision, the court held that based on the evidence Beijing Longteng Company filed, they fail to prove that the trademark in question has been authorized on products of glasses and protective spectacles publicly, lawfully and effectively during the statutory period. Based on these, the court revoked TRAB’s decision. Beijing Longteng Company and TRAB both appealed to the Beijing Higher People’s Court against Beijing IPR Court’s decision.
The court held that Beijing Longteng company have entrusted a Dongguan based sports company to produce thousands of sets of protective spectacles and these products should be affirmed for sale not for personal use based on the evidence materials and common understandings. As a result, the trademark in question should be regarded that it has been used publicly, lawfully and effectively. Based on the grounds mentioned above, the Beijing Higher People’s Court revoked the first-instance judgment and sustained TRAB’s decision.