11 Aug 2022
樂氏同仁藥業科技集團有限公司 v. 中國北京同仁堂(集團)有限責任公司
- Citation
- [2022] HKCFI 2512
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCIP62/2020
The court set aside the Hearing Officer's finding of bad faith (s 11(5)(a)) because the finding relied on unsafe inferences and the registrar erred in rejecting unchallenged sworn evidence without cross-examination; however, on de novo review the Logo Mark was found similar to the Opponent's mark and its registration was refused under s 12(3). For the Words Mark, registration was refused for Classes 32, 33 and 41 due to likelihood of confusion under s 12(3), but allowed for Class 36 because services in Class 36 are dissimilar and therefore no confusion, and the Opponent failed to establish s…