“HOLLAND” Not Allowed in Trademark?
文章来源： CHINA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY NEWS
The British CNH Industrial N.V. （hereinafter referred to as CNH Industrial）， which registered in Netherlands, started its recourse upon No. 16448139 trademark "NEW HOLLAND AGRICULTURE and figure" in China. Recently, Beijing High People's Court made a final judgment to end the two-year dispute.
CNH Industrial applied to the Trademark Office （TMO） to register the trademark in March, 2015, which was intended to be used on Class 37 of the services of installation and repair of irrigation equipment. TMO rejected the application in February, 2016 on the ground that "HOLLAND" in the trademark can be translated to "荷兰", the name of a country, which was not allowed to be part of a trademark. CNH Industrial then applied to TRAB for review in March, 2016, insisted that the exact trademark had been registered in the Netherlands and European Union for the same range of services. TRAB handed out its rejection in August, 2016 on the ground that European Union allowed the registration of the trademark, did not automatically establish consent from the Dutch government.
CNH Industrial then brought the case to Beijing IP Court. After review, Beijing IP Court rejected the application, holding that CNH Industrial was governed by Netherlands' legislation, while its main operation place was in UK, the trademark it applied to register, containing the word "HOLLAND", would mislead the correlation public about the origin of services.
CNH Industrial appealed to Beijing High People's Court, proposed that it was founded and operated according to the Dutch law, thus applying trademark registration which contained "HOLLAND", would not mislead the correlation public about the provenience of services. In addition, CNH Industrial submitted certified certification from Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs, to prove that Netherlands government is not against CNH Industrial's application of trademark registration based on services of Class 37 in China.
Beijing High People's Court nodded to CNH Industrial's appeal on the ground that the relevant certification could prove Netherlands government's agreement towards the application of the trademark registration in China, which contains "HOLLAND". Founded and operated according to the Dutch law, CNH Industrial applied trademark registration, which contains "HOLLAND", and would not mislead the association to the public about the origin of services. So, Beijing High People's Court withdrew both the decisions of the first stance and the TRAB and decreed TRAB to make a de novo decision. （by Wang Guohao）
围 绕 第 16448139 号 “NEW HOLLAND AGRICULTURE 及 图 ”商标（下称申请商标），注册地位于荷兰的英国西恩艾曲工业股份有限公司（下称西恩艾曲公司）在华展开了追索。近日，北京市高级人民法院作出终审判决，结 束了历时两年的争议。
申请商标由西恩艾曲公司于 2015年 3月向商标局提出注册申请，指定使用在灌溉设备的安装和修理等第 37类服务上。经审查，商标局于 2016 年 2月作出商标驳回通知，认为申请商标
中的“HOLLAND”可译为“荷兰”，为外国国名，禁用作商标。2016 年 3 月，西恩艾曲向商评委提出复审申请，主张与申请商标完全相同的标志已在相同 服 务 上 在 荷 兰 、欧 盟 获 得 注 册 。
2016 年 8 月，商评委作出复审决定，认为西恩艾曲公司在欧盟获准注册相关商标，不能视为荷兰政府已同意其注册该商标，驳回注册申请。西恩艾曲公司随后向北京知识产权法院提起行政诉讼。北京知识产权法院经审理认为，西恩艾曲公司虽然是依据荷兰法律成立的公司，但
其主要经营地为英国，其申请注册包含单词“HOLLAND”的商标，易导致相关公众对服务的来源地产生误认，据此判决驳回西恩艾曲公司的诉讼请求。
西恩艾曲公司继而向北京市高级人民法院提起上诉，主张西恩艾曲公司是按照荷兰法律组建和存续的公司，申请包含“HOLLAND”的商标不会造成相关公众对服务来源地产生混淆误认。西恩艾曲公司还补充提交了经公证认证的荷兰经济事务部证明，以证明荷兰政府不反对西恩艾曲公司在第 37 类服务上于中国注册申请商标。
北京市高级人民法院经审理认为，相关证据能证明荷兰政府同意包含“HOLLAND”字样的商标在中国申请注册。西恩艾曲公司是依照荷兰法律组建和存续的公司，申请商标含“HOLLAND”字样不会导致相关公众对服务来源产生混淆误认。综上，北京市高级人民法院对西恩艾曲公司的上诉请求予以支持，撤销一审判决及商评委作出的复审决定，并判令商评委重新作出决定。 （王国浩）
