Recently, Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court made a first instance ruling in favor of Procter&Gamble (P&G), the trademark owner of “Pampers帮宝适”against a Chinese company. The court rejected the decision by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) under the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) and the registration of “安宝适AnbaoShi and the device” as a trademark should not be approved.
“Pampers 帮宝适” is a famous baby products brand owned by P&G and are sold more than 100 countries all over the world. In April 1999, P&G filed “Pampers” and “帮宝适”（the Chinese version）before the Trademark Office (TMO) under SAIC and was approved registration in July 2000, covering goods of disposable nappies.
In August 2003, a local company, Shanghai Xinran Maternity & Child Articles Company filed “安宝适AnbaoShi” and the device as a trademark covering Class 16, the same class of goods as the registered trademark of “Pampers帮宝适”. The plaintiff then filed an opposition against the trademark “安宝适AnbaoShi” , but was not successful.
The P&G then applied for a reexamination before TRAB and alleged that the cited trademark “Pamper帮宝适” has been registered as a trademark earlier than the opposed trademark “AnbaoShi安宝适”, and enjoyed high reputations and popularity among the consumers and the public, and it should be recognized as a well-known trademark. P&G also claimed that the two marks were similar in words composition and both were registered for use on the same class of goods. However, P&G's claim was not accepted by TRAB either and the opposed trademark “安宝适AnbaoShi and the device” was approved to be registered.
The P&G then appealed before the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court.
After examination, the court held that the trademark of P&G was composed of three Chinese characters “帮宝适”, which has no special meaning, but has strong distinctiveness. After the promotion and use by P&G, the trademark has had a certain reputation among the public. The opposed trademark consists of another three Chinese characters “安宝适”, “安宝适” is a distinctive part of the mark. The font and words composition of “帮宝适” and “安宝适” were similar to each other, and the two marks were registered on the same class for the same kind of goods. It might easily make consumers believe that the two marks have some certain connection and get confused as to the source of the goods among the consumers. Therefore, the opposed trademark is identical with or similar to the registered trademark for the same or similar goods and there is similarity between the two marks.
The court then made the decision in favor of P&G.
