Chunlan, the person who disagreed, thought that the “CHUNLAN”trademark applied by the defender Zhou Jinbao was similar to the “CHUNLAN and pictorial” trademark registered by the person who disagreed before and made a trademark disagreement application to the Trademark Bureau. 

 

After receiving the disagreement application, Zhuo Jinbao entrusted Meancare to defend for this case. Through a careful analysis, Meancare intellectual property team thought that the disputed trademark and the reference trademark were substantially different in commodity use approval. The disputed trade had a significant characteristic differentiated from the reference trademark already. The disputed trademark constituted no similarity to the reference trademark. 

 

Finally, the Trademark Bureau adopted the viewpoint of Meancare and decided that the dispute reason proposed was not reasonable. “CHUNLAN” trademark was ratified for registration.