Called China “the first intellectual property case of wine” and “Cabernet trademark case”, after several twists and turns, has again become the focus of public concern.

HC food industry network After several twists and turns of “Cabernet trademark case”, recently became the focus of wide concern. December 30, 2009, the Beijing First Intermediate People made a first instance verdict. The court held that, because the plaintiff and the third presented in the proceedings, a large number of decisions that may affect the outcome of the case upon the evidence, if not be taken into account is not conducive to the protection of legitimate rights of the parties, in particular, is likely to harm the public interest, therefore, Therefore, quashing the defendant Trademark Review Commission ruled No. 05115, in considering new evidence submitted by the parties based on the re-determination.

Then, the media reported that “‘Cabernet’ Department of Industry of public resources”, “highly Wine Industry concerned with intellectual property disputes Preliminary Conclusions. “Thing is it? China University of Political Science Research Center, deputy director of the Intellectual Property Intellectual accept the China Intellectual Property News in an interview, said: first-instance ruling only requires Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to re-found” COFCO Great Wall trademark dispute raised by the request, “the two sides are not directly determine who wins trademark dispute, the case proceedings have yet to go, now,” Cabernet “trade mark registration will not be the legal effect of any change.

From “Cabernet” applications for trademark registration was to be registered, deregistered, to maintain the register, after review, to the court and therefore the court ruling requires the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to re-found, from administration to administration of justice, and now from justice has returned to administrative procedures. After more than 7 years already, “Cabernet” trademark dispute about who is the final winner, appears to need a very long process.

Long trademark dispute Event had to from 8 years ago. May 2001, Yantai Changyu SAIC Group Limited to the Trademark Office, “Cabernet” trademark application for registration. The Trademark Office shall be published after the initial approval of, the legal objections raised no objections during the period, the Trademark Office on April 2002 to be approved for registration, trademark registration No. No. No. 1,748,888, the designated protection products, including wine, brandy, shochu and other , exclusive period to April 2012.

This caused manufacturers COFCO Great Wall Wine opposition. July 10, 2002, the Trademark Office to trademark Caesar (2002) 187 “on the removal of section No. 1,748,888,” Cabernet “registered trademark of the decision,” saying “Cabernet” is a red wine Raw material Species name, the registered trademark shall be revoked. At the same time, the Great Wall, Veyron, several dynasties such as wine production enterprises with “Cabernet” is a wine generic name, is the main raw material for brewing wine, ground joint to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to submit the application, sought to withdraw ” Cabernet “trademark.

For the Trademark Office to revoke the decision, Changyu Inc. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to review a request, at the same time, the controversy over the Great Wall and other companies to apply for accreditation committee is also pending. May 26, 2008, Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, after repeated tests, and after many rounds of evaluation were removed and Trademark Office has made the first decision of the BIA 187 words (2008) No. 05143 decision and dismissed the Great Wall and other units of the revocation request BIA words (2008) No. 05115 No. trademark dispute ruling, the maintenance of Changyu wine in class 33 ( Beverages ) And other goods on the first registration No. 1748888, “Cabernet” trademark. Decision No. 05,143 of which have become legally effective. Currently, “Cabernet” remain valid trademarks registered trademark. Disobeys Trademark Review and Adjudication Board

ruling, in June 2008, the grain Wine Company, Valence (the company in case of withdrawal of the prosecution during the trial), Dynasty company, Great Wall to Beijing in the hospital for a proposed administrative proceedings. October 2008, two public court hearing of the case, and after a more than a year, which was recently made a first instance verdict.

Court of First Instance against the decision, COFCO Wines & Spirits Inc. Proxy People, Beijing Jincheng Law Firm Law Hong Song of the reporter said that the current inconvenience comments.