On the press conference dated April 17^th ,2012, which was titled “Top 10 Cases and 50 Classic Cases about Judicial Protection for Intellectual Property Rights”, the  administrative case abouttrademark registration of “CASTEL” being cancelled based on non-use for consecutive three years, which was won by us on behalf of our client, was confirmed as one of the top 10 cases. The social implications of this case for administrative litigations on intellectual property protection have been universally and fully acknowledged.

In July, 2005, CASTEL FRERES SAS (hereinafter referred to as “SAS”) filed an application with the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Office) to cancel the registration of Daozhi Li’s trademark “CASTEL” (the trademark involved in the Case) registered on “Fruit wine(containing alcohol)” in Class 33, based on the grounds that Daozhi Li had failed to make use of this trademark for consecutive three (3) years. Because of Daozhi Li’s failure of filing evidence of use pertaining to the trademark involved within the statutory period, the Trademark Office cancelled the registration of the trademark involved. Afterwards, Daozhi Li applied to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred as TRAB) for case review, and filed relevant evidence such as trademark license contracts and two value-added tax invoices of selling “Castel” dry red wine by a licensee. The TRAB made a ruling with No. 8357 that the decision of the Trademark Office shall be revoked and the registration of the trademark involved shall remain. SAS didn’t obey the verdict and brought an administrative action before Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court. Our firm’s lawyers represented Daozhi Li in court with his authorization. We, with painstaking efforts, managed to safeguard our Principal’s legitimate trademark rights in the court of first instance, the court of second instance and the Supreme Court, successfully preserving our Principal’s right of use of the trademark involved on the designated goods.