Core Tip: CCTV has mentioned objection that the mark with the "windmill" section similar trademarks, easily lead to misidentification; however Trademark Office finds insufficient grounds

Wenzhou Reuters Wenzhou culture stone windmill firm boss Mr. Wu has finally won the "Windmill" trademark. Trademark applications for three years, during which the trademark dispute CCTV, after SAIC Trademark Office ruled that the objections raised by CCTV reasons not established. Wu applied for a trademark on the council, "windmill" in the text and figure to be approved for registration.
Mr. Wu's firm operating various types of stone, he was ready to apply for a trademark to create their own brand. March 2011, he applied for a trademark of "Windmill" in the text and a windmill, a figure composed by Wenzhou Trademark Office. Trademark Office for the trademark examination conducted after initial announcement. Soon, one commissioned by the Intellectual Property Office of CCTV to the Trademark Office to challenge.
CCTV feels that their television TV program "Windmill" and its trademark in the country have a wider impact, is the same objection trademarks and CCTV trademark registration of the mark could easily lead to confusion to the public and copyright infringement, will have adverse social affected.
Mr. Wu immediately commissioned a Beijing intellectual property agency to reply to the objections to be raised by CCTV. Mr. Wu is one that "Windmill" is a common name, should not be a monopoly, is not opposed trademark copyright infringement CCTV, CCTV cited the trademarks and trademarks designated goods are not similar, CCTV should expand the scope of trademark protection.
Trademark Office review found that the use of trademark opposition is designated as Class 19 goods "artificial stone" and so on. The CCTV earlier registered the "big windmill DAFENGCHE" trademark was in 38th class and other classes of goods or services registered. Both sides use the trademark goods or services specified in terms of functional purposes, services, etc. are clearly different, does not belong to similar goods or services, and therefore, the two sides did not constitute a trademark similar mark on similar goods, it will not cause confusion to consumers. CCTV considered copyright infringement Wu and adverse effects of insufficient evidence.