Guangdong Hotata Technology Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Haotata Company") applied for invalidation of trademark No.9501078 (hereinafter referred to as "disputed trademark") registered by Foshan Kaidaneng Enterprise Management Consulting Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Kaidaneng Company"), and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board ruled to maintain the disputed trademark. Hotata Company refused to accept the ruling and filed an administrative lawsuit. The courts of first and second instance both upheld the original ruling. Hotata Company then applied for retrial. 

The relevant trademark information in this case is as follows: 

The points in the change of judgment during retrial are as below: 

(1) Whether the disputed trademark and the Cited Trademark 3 constitute the circumstances stipulated in Article 30 of the Trademark Law, that is, whether they are the same as or similar to trademarks registered or preliminarily examined by others. 

The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and the Court of First and Second Instance held that the trademark in dispute was a combination of pictures and texts, and the Cited Trademark 3 only contains words, which had obvious differences. Moreover, the trademark in dispute was similar to the trademark involved in the case with high popularity of Kaidaneng Company, and had formed an established market pattern after long-term use. Therefore, it does not constitute an similar trademark. 

The retrial court held that although the word "Haotaitai" in the disputed trademark is the same as the trademark involved in the case that Kaidaneng Company was first approved to register and was once recognized as a well-known trademark, the prominent part of the disputed trademark is the Chinese word "好太太", which is completely included by the Cited Trademark 3, and the two trademarks are used on the same or similar goods, which may easily cause confusion and misunderstanding among consumers. Therefore, said mark falls into the circumstance stipulated in Article 30 of the Trademark Law.  

(2) Whether the application for registration of the disputed trademark exists under the circumstances stipulated in Article 13.3 of the Trademark Law, that is, whether there is a copy, imitation or translation of well-known trademarks registered on different or dissimilar goods. 

Both the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and the Court of First and Second Instance held that the Cited Trademark 1 and the trademark involved in the case had reached a well-known level in their respective commodity fields. The trademark in dispute is similar to the trademark involved in the case, but is obviously different from the Cited Trademark 1. Kaidaneng Company has no subjective intention to copy or imitate the Cited Trademark 1. The coexistence of the two marks in the market will not mislead the public and does not violate the provisions of Article 13.3 of the Trademark Law. 

The retrial court held that the trademark in dispute is not the same as the trademark involved in the case. Even if the trademark involved in the case is well-known, it is not the natural reason why the trademark in dispute should be approved for registration. The possibility to register the trademark in dispute should be judged according to the relevant provisions of the Trademark Law. Therefore, the appealed ruling (i.e. the disputed trademark was a reasonable extension registration of the prior trademark rights of Kaidaneng Company) and the original judgment (which regard the trademark involved as the connection of the disputed trademark registration) both lacked legal basis. The prominent identification part of the disputed trademark is the word "好太太", which is the same as the Cited Trademark 1 and constitutes an similar logo. Kaidaneng Company once used the name "Guangdong Hotata Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.", which had been determined by the administrative department as a damage to the trademark rights and interests of Haotaitai Company. Also, there is the effective judgment which deems that Kaidaneng Company infringes the trademark right of Cited Trademark 1 in its business activities, and the application for registration of the disputed trademark constitutes copying and imitation of the Cited Trademark 1, thereby misleading the public, causing the interests of Hotata Company to be damaged, which falls into the scope of non-registration as stipulated in Article 13.3 of the Trademark Law. 

The retrial court eventually revoked the judgment of the first and second instance and appealed ruling, and ordered CNIPA to make a new ruling. 

The application of extension theory should be strict and prudent. The trademark involved in the case is "Haotaitai" and the disputed trademark is "Haotaitai 好太太", yet one cannot take it for granted that the word "好太太" in the disputed trademark also belongs to the extension of "Haotaitai" trademark. Obviously, the change of judgment in this case also considered the malicious factors of the parties' registration of the disputed trademark.