Attorney-at-law of PSCU acting as agent of the applicant of
trademark “SONAR” won a lawsuit at Beijing NO.1 Intermediate People’s Court

　　Recently, the Beijing NO.1 Intermediate People’s Court made the ruling about the applicant of trademark “SONAR” Vs. the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board(TRAB for short). The Court ruled that revoke the decision of rejection review, and order the TRAB to make a decision again. A case involving the decision of rejection review of trademark “SONAR” made by TRAB, and the applicant of trademark “SONAR” is the winner. PSCU representing trademark applicant has participated in the case all the way through the proceedings of application for, and the decision of rejection review of trademark in suit to the administrative lawsuit.

Facts of the Case

　　In October 2006, Kunshan Hexing Transport Equipment Ltd (Kunshan  Hexing Ltd for short) applied for the English words trademark “SONAR” in class 11, the goods covering “lights for vehicles” “reflecting equipment for vehicles” “lighting apparatus for vehicles” “light bulbs for directional signals” and so on. After examination, the Trademark Office ruled that the trademark can be translated into Chinese “sonic wave, sound locater”, the use on the designated goods such as “light for vehicles” in class 11, is liable to make the relative public to deem that the trademark has direct reference to the function, intended purpose of goods, misleads the public, has unhealthy influences. So, the trademark application has been refused by the Trademark Office. In the process of the review on the refusal, the TRAB deem that the proof which the Kunshan Hexing Ltd submitted did not prove that it ever used the trademark and eliminated the possibility of misunderstanding, the reasons set forth by the Kunshan Hexing Ltd for the review are untenable, the trademark “SONAR” was rejected. The Kunshan Hexing Ltd was dissatisfied with the ruling made by the TRAB, then entrusted us to institute legal proceedings with the Beijing NO1 Intermediate People’s Court.
　　After accepting a commission, we analyzed the ruling of review on refusal carefully, and based on the comprehension of the case, then presented following views:  
　　1．although “SONAR” Chinese means “sonic wave, sound locater”, “sonar” is the product and technology that use for sonic navigation and detection system under the water. The goods and the technical expertise used under water and the vehicle goods used on the ground are significant different, and so both consumer group.
　　2．the trademark “SONAR” applied by Kunshan Hexing Ltd is absolute English words, the common consumer can not distinguish the Chinese meaning when used in china, as “SONAR” is a technology specially used under water, the common consumer do not understand such technology, even Chinese consumer who know much of English do not know its Chinese meaning either.
　　3．Kunshan Hexing Ltd has acquired “SONAR” trademark registration certificate which cover the vehicle goods that belongs to other class. As the matter of fact, trademark“SONAR” do not create any unhealthy influences, even used on the vehicle goods besides “vehicle lights”.
　　4．the parent company of Kunshan Hexing Ltd has registered trademark “SONAR” in class 12, covering “automobile parts and other goods, on August 7, 1998 and also acquired the registration of trademark “SONAR” in EU on March 30, 2006. the fact that “SONAR” as an English words trademark has granted registration in the countries which English is their main language, illustrate that “SONAR” as a English words trademark do not create any unhealthy influences when registered.
　　Trademark “SONAR” has had high reputation used on “lights for vehicles”, because trademark “SONAR” has been extensively used by Kunshan Hexing Ltd and its parent company. The People’s court adopted our opinion at length, and then gave aforesaid judgment.