Unitalen Successfully Represents Hongjunda Electronics in Opposition against the Trademark “厦星+Amoisun”

September 22, 2003
Unitalen Successfully Represents Hongjunda Electronics in Opposition against the Trademark “厦星+Amoisun”In October 2001, Amosonic Electronics Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “the Opponent”), raised an appeal against the trademark“厦星+Amoisun” (hereinafter referred to as “the opposed trademark”). The trademark had been preliminarily approved by China Trademark Office (CTO) of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) under No. 1432388 and published on Issue 735 in the Trademark Gazette. Unitalen Attorneys at Law pursued the registration on behalf of its client, Hongjunda Electronics (hereinafter referred to as “the Opposed Party”), a company based out of the Liwan District, Guangzhou. The CTO accepted the appeal, and the opposed party filed a response within the prescribed time limit.

The Arguments of the Opponent:

The Opponent’s prior registered trademark “厦新” and “Amoisonic” are both original creations and that are distinct from one another. They have become well-known brands to consumers. The Chinese part of the opposed trademark “厦星” has the same pronunciation as “厦新” which is owned by the Opponent. The English part of the opposed trademark “Amoisun” and the trademark owned by the Opponent, “Amoisonic,” both contain the same English letters “Amoi.” Therefore, the opposed trademark and the prior registered trademark owned by the Opponent are similar trademarks prior registered on the same goods.

The Response of the Opposed Party:

In the respect to the composition of the opposed trademark, “厦星+Amoisun,” it is composed of two parts. The upper part of it is two Chinese characters “厦星”, and the lower part of it is “Amoisun”. The structure of the trademark is very clear and palpable and consumers can detect it when they pay normal attention to it. Meanwhile, the prior registered trademarks “厦新” and “Amoisun” owned by the Opponent are composed of unitary Chinese characters and English letters. Therefore, it’s not difficult to see there are significant differences between the structures of the two trademarks.

Furthermore, in respect to the grapheme of the opposed trademark, although the upper part of the opposed trademark “厦星+Amoisun” and the prior registered trademark “厦新” share the same Chinese character “厦,” a significant difference exists between the structures of the two characters of “星" and “新.” In terms of the structure, “星” is up-down structure, while “新” is left-right structure. In term of pronunciation, “星” is pronounced, “xing,” while “新” is pronounced, “xin.” As far as the educational standards of the general consumers are concerned, it is quite easy to distinguish between the two characters.

In addition, the English part of the opposed trademark, “Amoisun,” consists of 7 letters, while the prior registered trademark of the Opponent, “Amoisonic,” consists of 10 letters, with the first letter “A” plasmodium. Therefore, there are differences between “Amoisun” and “Amoisonic.” The Opponent stated in a notice of Opposition that “Amoi” is partial tone of Xiamen (a city in Chinese Fujian Province) in South Fujian dialect. Provided that it’s true, it’s not fair for one company to monopolize this partial tone because it violates fidelity and credit principle, and is prohibited by civil law and trademark law.

To sum up, the opposed trademark, “厦星+Amoisun,” and the prior registered trademark, “厦新+Amoisonic,” clearly do not represent two similar trademarks and thus will not deceive or cause confusion among consumers.

The Adjudication Made by CTO:

The opposed trademark applied for registration in Class 9 with respect to “apparatus for recording, transmission, or reproduction of sound or images.” The trademark is composed of Chinese characters, “厦星,” and English letters, “Amoisun.” Compared with the prior registered trademark owned by the Opponent, “厦新+Amoisonic,” there exists a different meaning in the Chinese part, and there are is a distinct difference in both makeup and meaning concerning the English part. Furthermore, the two trademarks do not constitute similar trademarks registered on similar products. Therefore, the registration and use of the opposed trademark will not deceive nor cause confusion in the marketplace. Thus, the opposition is not justified.

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 19 of the Trademark Law, the trademark “厦星+Amoisun” under preliminary approval No. 1432388, shall be approved for registration.

　

Keywords