.jpg)
Beijing High People's Court recently rendered its final decision on the No.4305050 高通trademark （Note: Chinese characters literally the same with QUALCOMM's Chinese translation） revocation case, ordering the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board （TRAB） to decide whether the evidences furnished by Shanghai Gaotong at the second instance are sufficient to enable the trademark to pass the test of actual use. Beijing High will abstain from trying the case.
The trademark in question was filed for registration by Shanghai Gaotong Semiconductor Company on October 12, 2004 and was approved for registration on March 28, 2008, certified to be used on Class 42 products including PC software design, PC hardware consultation and so on.
On August 12, QUALCOMM Incorporated filed an application to the Trademark Office （TMO） for revocation of the trademark in question on the ground that it had ceased use for three consecutive years. On April 27, 2014, TMO decided to root for the trademark. The disgruntled QUALCOMM then brought the case to TRAB on May 26, 2014.
After looking at the exhibits furnished by Shanghai Gaotong to prove its actual use of the trademark, TRAB narrowed the registration by allowing the trademark's use on PC software design and revoking its use on package design and interior decoration design. Unwilling to take no for an answer, QUALCOMM sought justice at Beijing IP Court.
After hearing, Beijing IP Court held that Shanghai Gaotong failed to prove that the trademark was used effectively on PC software design during the time span from August 12, 2010 to August 11, 2013. Accordingly, the IP court uprooted the TRAB decision made by TRAB. Shanghai Gaotong had no choice but appealing to Beijing High.
At the Court hearing in the second stance, Shanghai Gaotong Company submitted 18 pieces of new evidences to prove that it has used the trademark during that specified period. It also claimed that the new evidences were of great importance to judge whether the trademark was actually used. It asked Beijing High to order TRAB to review the case based on the evidences.
Beijing High held that the evidences provided by Shanghai Gaotong during the TRAB review and the first instance hearing failed to prove that the trademark in dispute had been used on PC software design during the specified period. In light of the IP Court's retrying order to TRAB, TRAB would decide the admission of the 18 new evidences and the test of the actual use.
In this connection, Beijing High sided with the IP Court and sent the case back to TRAB. （by Wang Guohao）
（Editor Li Xingyi）
（All contents of this newspaper may not be reproduced or used without express permission）