Later, due to the breakdown of the cooperative relationship between shareholders, Chen Wenmin withdrew from Shanghai Shangdao and established Hangzhou Shangdao, and filed a lawsuit to revoke the Shang

Later, due to the breakdown of the cooperative relationship between shareholders, Chen Wenmin withdrew from Shanghai Shangdao and established Hangzhou Shangdao, and filed a lawsuit to revoke the Shangdao trademark. After many twists and turns, in July 2005, the court made a final ruling that Shanghai Shangdao officially revoked its right to use the trademark "Shangdao and Pictures" on the grounds of infringement of prior copyright. The final judgment of the administrative litigation of the Beijing Municipal People’s Court stated: ‘When applying to register the disputed trademark, Chen Wenmin was not asked for permission, which infringed Chen Wenmin’s copyright, and his behavior was illegal. On July 29, 2000, Chen Wenmin learned that his work had been applied for registration as a trademark but did not express any objection. This statement was not legally binding on Chen Wenmin. Later, a dispute arose between the two parties. Chen Wenmin applied to cancel the disputed trademark within the statutory statute of limitations on April 22, 2003. The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board reviewed the case and found that it was not inappropriate to cancel the disputed trademark. Shanghai Shangdao Company argued that Chen Wenmin violated the principle of good faith and estoppel, but this court did not support it. ’ There is a legal logic in this. Although the work of ‘Shangdao and Pictures’ provided by shareholder Chen Wenmin is available for trademark application, according to the law, the use of copyright requires the consent of the rights holder. In the dispute, Shanghai Shangdao claimed that although shareholder Chen Wenmin did not sign the contract, his knowledge should be regarded as an implicit consent. However, according to the logic of the law, ‘implied’ consent is a presumption of the law, and consent can only be deemed to be ‘implied’ if it is clearly stipulated by the law. As Professor Ma Yide, Chen Wenmin’s attorney, wrote in his appeal statement, ‘knowing’ does not mean ‘agreeing’. The case ended up because there was no copyright contract, and the shareholders used the previous copyright application to cancel the trademark. 4. Use paid computer fonts with caution when naming trademarks. With the need for beauty and personalization in publicity, many paid font companies have emerged. They design novel fonts and edit them into font library software for sale. The designed art computer font font company claims that they believe that the font is a kind of art design and enjoys copyright, and also enjoys software copyright. There is currently no unified opinion on this judicial practice. Some judgments do not recognize the copyright of artistic works using computer fonts. For example, in 2011, Founder Font sued Procter & Gamble for using the ‘Rejoice’ font as a trademark and lost. However, some judicial decisions also recognize that a single computer font enjoys copyright as a work of art, such as the Jiangsu court's decision on Xiuying style. In 2010, Beijing Hanyi Keyin Information Technology Co., Ltd. discovered that Kunshan Xiaobaxi Infant Products Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Xiaobaxi Infant Products Co., Ltd. used "Xiuyingti" in the "Xiaobaxi" word mark without permission. The word 'laugh' and the word 'happy'. In 2011, the Jiangsu Provincial High Court’s final judgment determined that the trademark infringed on the copyright of computer art fonts. Therefore, in a judicial environment where computer fonts are controversial, companies should be careful when choosing Chinese characters to use as trademarks. When communicating with designers, they should avoid using paid computer fonts to avoid unnecessary disputes. If necessary, you can ask someone to design the inscription and sign a written contract on copyright transfer. 5. A thought that needs to be eliminated when naming a trademark. When we develop a new product, from a sales perspective, we always summarize the characteristics of the company's products, and then choose a word from the characteristics of the product. a trademark. For example, a company developed a leakage protector and believed that the leakage protector was safe to use, so it named it the "Safe" brand leakage protector. This is not allowed because leakage point protection products are functions or obvious features of this product or similar products. All companies in this industry can call them 'safe' leakage as long as the products they produce meet safety-related standards. Protectors, therefore, signs that merely directly represent the quality, main raw materials, functions, uses, weight, quantity and other characteristics of the goods shall not be registered as trademarks. This example can be understood in this way. Once the unique characteristics of a product are monopolized by a company and used as a trademark, it is inappropriate.We can also see this example from the name of 'Safeguard' soap. In a sense, any soap can give the skin a comfortable feeling, that is, 'Safeguard', so 'Safeguard' is used as the name. There is a risk that a trademark will be revoked if it is unsuccessfully registered or if it is successfully registered. Once revoked, all the advertising and publicity capital invested by the company in the early stage will be wasted. Therefore, Procter & Gamble added a word to the name to become "Safeguard", which makes the name safer. Bajie Intellectual Property Trademark Transfer Network