Burberry The Decision To Cancel The "Trademark" Has Not Yet Entered Into Force.

< p > according to the press, lopda Polo leather products Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "lopda polo") has applied for the cancellation of the trademark of the bopley "lattice pattern", which has been supported by relevant departments. Because of the fact that bopley's "lattice pattern" trademark has not been used in China for 3 years, it has been abolished by the Trademark Bureau of the General Administration of industry and Commerce of China.

At the same time, Boboli didn't expect it to face a claim from the road to Polo polo, which amounted to 500 million yuan.

< /p >

< p > < strong > lopda Polo is called Boboli < /strong > /p >

< p > the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce in November 19th replied to "LDA Da polo" that the bureau decided to cancel the "figure" trademark of category G732879 (18 class) according to the forty-fourth article (four) of the trademark law and the thirty-ninth regulation on the implementation of the trademark law.

The graphic symbol No. G732879 is registered by Haramoto Yuhiro Bailey company in China.

< /p >

< p > yesterday (November 28th), Boboli public relations company sent an official statement to the Bloomberg group on the "lattice pattern" trademark issue to the journalist. It said it would appeal against the decision of the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce on the decision of the Boboli "lattice pattern" trademark (involving leather products only). Before the appeal decision, the Trademark Office's decision on the cancellation of the trademark has not yet come into effect, and bolberry can still use its trademark in leather or any other product, and believes that the appeal will be successful.

< /p >

< p > in addition, in the statement, Boboli emphasized that "lattice pattern" is still a registered trademark owned by bolberry company, and other companies are not authorized to use the trademark without the official authorization of Boboli.

Burberry will continue to take the most forceful measures to resist such illegal use of registered trademarks.

< /p >

< p >, however, after the announcement of the notice of cancellation of the Trademark Office of the General Administration of industry and Commerce of China in the "a href=" //www.sjfzxm.com/news/index_c.asp "Bo" /a "November 21st, lopda Polo announced that the company had been infringed on by several ways including property preservation, prohibition order, evidence preservation and other lawsuits, and had suffered huge losses. For this reason, lopda Polo has filed a claim of 500 million yuan against boblie, and will submit the indictment to the relevant court in the near future.

< /p >

< p > it is reported that Lu Bi Da Polo is located in Nanhai District, Foshan City, Guangdong province. It is a leather manufacturer specializing in handbags, briefcases and drawbar boxes.

< /p >

< p > according to the media guide, a leader of polo, currently, Hongkong has 14 stores in Taiwan, and 6 in Taiwan, and there are also stores in the friendship store in mainland China.

"500 million yuan is a conservative estimate. In the prime of life, the company has a monthly turnover of 30 million yuan. According to the profit margin of 30%, there will be a profit of more than 100 million yuan a year.

But in the past 10 years, we have been weighed down too much by boboley. Because of the lawsuit, the store opened and closed, and it (Bo Baili) would also tell our customers that the customers could not take the goods. The company could not expand at all. Now, the turnover of only a few million yuan a month is down sharply, and it can only be maintained without loss, and the business is far behind.

< /p >

Chen Beiyuan, partner lawyer of Beijing Ying Ke law firm, who handled the claim, said in an interview that the claim was 500 million yuan based on the results of the loss of lopda polo. It will appeal to other businesses that suffered losses because of Burberry's prosecution and filed a lawsuit against P.

According to its disclosure, Boboli has been lawsuits against dozens of enterprises on the grounds that other brands have infringed their trademarks and unfair competition.

< /p >

< p > < strong > > a href= "//www.sjfzxm.com/news/index_c.asp > > brand law < /a > protection needs to be strengthened < /strong > /p >

< p > how to deal with the appeals for the arrival of lopda polo, Boboli public relations, in reply to the reporter's reply, said that Boboli and boboley's PR company had no further information to offer.

< /p >

< p > reporters interviewed Lu Bi Da Polo yesterday, and the other side said that the lawyer handling the matter was not directly interviewed, and indicated that he would take the initiative to contact him.

But as of press release, the reporter did not receive the response from the other side.

< /p >

Tao Jingzhou, an executive partner of Asia's business in the American law firm, said in an interview with reporters that in November 13th, there was indeed a decision to revoke the 3 year's no use. However, he inquired about the relevant website and found that Boboli had had a license contract for the record in December 5, 2011, and the case began in February 2012. So, the trademark "boxbrand" registered by bolberry has not been used for at least 3 years. It seems that it is not valid.

"The use, including the use and permission of others, is used. There should be no case where the trademark is not used.

Either the trademark agency is negligent or the Trademark Office has made a mistake, but according to the available information, the specific reason is not clear. "

< /p >

< p > as for the boboley statement and its decision to withdraw the trademark office before the appeal decision is not yet effective, Tao Jingzhou said there was no problem because the case had to wait until the Trademark Review Board revoked the review. However, the review was also very long, at least a few months, while Boboli wanted to prove that it had used the trademark in 3 years.

< /p >

Zhou Ting, President of the P, > a href= "//www.sjfzxm.com/news/index_c.asp" > luxury goods < /a >, President of the Institute of wealth and quality, said: "after the incident, it did have a certain impact on the brand of Boboli, mainly consumer confidence. Boboli always came to have her own LOGO, but in fact, the direct correlation between consumer and brand is its classic grid.

If such things happen, consumer confidence will be hurt, and even the Bobby is not Pi Bo Baily. "

Zhou Ting said that brand should be aware of the importance of trademark protection from a regular angle, but the actual protection strength, the measures in place and the legal protection after market malicious behavior is not enough.

< /p >

< p > Zhou Ting pointed out that the brand has always been too much emphasis on sales and operation in China, and legal protection itself is still a weak link.

In the Chinese market, the product infringement and the current trademark infringement are more and more damaging to the brand, especially the brand of this kind of event is a large number of brands. If such a negative event, especially the problem of direct connection between the consumer rights and the brand value, is not dealt with well, the blow to the brand will be worse.

< /p >

< p > Zhou Ting believes that if boboley fails to appeal, the desire of consumers to buy will be suppressed, and the loss of the use of "grid pattern" trademark will result in too much loss.

< /p >

Tao Jingzhou also holds the same view on "P >. But he believes that from the current data, it should not have such an outcome. It believes that the prospect of Bo Baili can win the lawsuit is more optimistic.

< /p >