The application filed by Prince of Peace Enterprises, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as PPE) for trademark registration of 鈥淧RINCE OF PEACE鈥 was refused by the Trademark Office. The refusal review filed afterwards was also ruled against PPE by Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (hereinafter referred to as TRAB). Our law firm entrusted by PPE, assigned this case to Attorney Guoqiang Wang and Attorney Donghai Liu. Our lawyers brought an administrative action before the First Intermediate Court of Beijing on behalf of PPE, requesting the court to revoke TRAB鈥檚 ruling.
The Trademark Office and TRAB both held that this trademark has adverse social influence, on the grounds that this trademark could be translated into 鈥淛esus Christ鈥. After careful and thorough analysis, our firm鈥檚 lawyers argued that even though this trademark could be construed as 鈥淛esus Christ鈥, 鈥淛esus Christ鈥 is not the only meaning of this trademark, but a hidden meaning. Recognition function of trademarks is referred to consumers. Normal consumers would construe this trademark as 鈥減eaceful prince鈥 rather than 鈥淛esus Christ鈥. Furthermore, this trademark has been registered and put into use for many years in U.S.A and other countries without bringing any adverse influence.
Beijing First Intermediate People鈥檚 Court heard this case openly and ruled that this trademark would not exert adverse social influence, and that TRAB shall revoke its previous ruling and make a new one. Afterwards, TRAB filed an appeal with the Beijing High People鈥檚 Court which upheld the decision of Beijing Frist Intermediate People鈥檚 Court.
