applicant Floor Xpert Pte Co. , LTD. , to be established at No 37 Class registered the following trademarks, For specific services related to flooring and maintenance:

The applicant claims, The contested trademark has gained prominence from its use, But the evidence it submitted to that end did not convince trademark examiners.

especially, The evidence for the acquisition of significance is considered inadequate, because: (i) The name of the company is used "Floor Xpert Pte Ltd" , Instead of competing for trademarks; (ii) The evidence submitted was not about No 37 Class related services, It simply reflects its use in transactions relating to flooring products. Despite the applicant's submission 3 Wheel opinion, But the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) The dismissal was upheld. so, Applicant to the Principal Assistant Registrar (PAR) Request for hearing.

PAR Point out, In assessing whether a sign has achieved significance, It should be demonstrated whether the relevant public uses the mark to determine whether the goods or services are from a particular merchant, This requires a thorough assessment of the evidence.

He pointed out that, Before applying for registration, The contested trademark has already been used 8 More than years. "Floor Xpert" Has been used as "Origin mark (badge of origin) " . Applicant in 2010 years 2 The web pages created by Month include "floorxpert" word. pass Facebook Public information, The applicant refers to himself as "Floor Xpert" , its Facebook The page adopts "@FloorXpert" . It's worth noting, No other company in Singapore uses the contested trademark as its origin mark. PAR Customer reviews are also taken into account, Engagement with media and search engine optimization.

PAR After reassessing the examiner's conclusions, Each case is fact-specific. In this particular case: (i) In assessing the significance gained from use, You can consider competing for various forms of trademark use, and (ii) Although there is evidence that the trademark is used on other goods or services, Such evidence can still be used to prove the mark in the application for registration of the service (Immediate regulation 37 Class service) Upper use.

If a company has been in business for a long time, And the general impact of its business on consumers is that they see the company's name as a source symbol, Then the use of the full name of the applicant's company shall be counted as trademark use, This is especially the case where the trademark is contested for inclusion in the name of the company.

Similar reasoning applies to evidence of an applicant's use of web pages and social media. Name of the company, Web and social media user names have something in common: "Floor Xpert" . The applicant used these means to reach customers in Singapore, Sales were made.

Submitted by the applicant through examination Facebook Evidence of the post, PAR notice, Its services are provided as a holistic package. Its activities are aimed at trademark disputes, Falls within the scope of a particular service, Or at least closely related to it. PAR The conclusion is that, Shall accept the registration of the contested mark.

The decision is significant, Because it says the name of the company, Domain names and social media user names can be used as evidence of trademark use. (Compiled from www. asiaiplaw. com)

translation: Rason group　proofread: Wang Dan

　　disclaimer: This network reprint or compile the original article from the Internet, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact this website, This network will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.