最近一家法人代表为夏宝、名字为“帕尼多（徐州）信息科技有限公司”的企业引起了我们的注意，这家公司在中国大陆已经申请和注册了许多与我司名字（LITOKOL/丽多可）类似或相同的商标，对广大消费者造成了困惑。在此，我方回复大家对本事件的关注，希望能提供一些有用的情况说明。

It has come to our attention that an entity called “帕尼多（徐州）信息科技有限公司”, represented by its legal representative Xiao Bao, has filed and registered in Mainland China several trademarks quite similar/identical to our Company’s name [LITOKOL/丽多可], causing confusion among the public. Hereby we recall your attention on the main points of this case, with the aim to provide some useful clarifications.

根据在CTMO-中国商标局-公用数据库（http://wsjs.saic.gov.cn）上的可用信息显示，以夏宝个人名义已注册多个不同类别的外国商标（英文名），部分与我们行业部门相关。

According to the information available on CTMO – China Trademark Office – public database [http://wsjs.saic.gov.cn], it appears that Xiao Bao, throughout out one of his enterprise “帕尼多（徐州）信息科技有限公司”, has already registered several foreign-trademarks (English-wording) under different classes, partially connected to our industry-segment.

当搜索聚焦在中文商标时，也会产生同样的结果，甚至更糟，更好的情况说明见下图。你可能很容易发现，很多注册的商标名称都有与我公司类似或相同的文字（有些人可能会认为它们代表着虚假模仿、擅自占用或仿冒品牌）

Same thing – or even worse – happens when a research is triggered with focus on the Chinese version of the trademarks, as better specified in the Exhibit listed below. As you may easily understand, there are plenty registrations having a similar and/or identical wording [some people may even consider that they represent deceitful imitation, squatter or copycat brands] with our Company’s name.

由此可见，由夏宝注册的中文商标与我公司中文商标可能仅有两字之差（例如：“丽多可碧欧”与“丽多可”），而英文商标几乎雷同。我公司商标的原始版本与夏宝先生创建的最主要不同将追溯到商标注册时的国际分类上：我公司产品主要应用于建筑材料行业领域（例如建筑砂浆、石膏、水泥等），而夏宝先生的商标则是随机分布的。

It can be seen that the Chinese trademarks registered by such person [Xiao Bao] may only be two words different from our Chinese trademarks (i.e. "Li Duo Ke Bi Ou" vs "Li Duo Ke"), while the English-wording trademarks are almost the same. The main difference between the original version of our trademarks and the alternative options created by Xiao Bao, sometimes it shall be traced back to the international classification under which the marks were registered: our products are mainly used in the field of building materials industry (i.e. building mortar, gypsum, cement, etc.); while his ones are randomly spread.

在此提供我公司（LITOKOL/丽多可）所有的官方信息供您参考，旨在让任何感兴趣的一方人士能够方便识别我司与其他未经授权的个体/实体。更多详细信息可在CTMO在线数据库（http://wsjs.saic.gov.cn）和其他知名中文网站平台上（https://www.tianyancha.com）查询，只需搜索我们的官方公司名字即可。

For your information, hereby we share all the official data connected to our Company [LITOKOL/丽多可], with the intent to let any interested party to easily recognize us from any other un-authorized individual/entity. More details can be easily find both on CTMO online database [http://wsjs.saic.gov.cn], as well as on other well-known Chinese website platform such as [https://www.tianyancha.com/] by simply researching our official Company name.

除上述之外，由于2019年3月在APP今日头条上发布的一篇与上述信息主题相同的新闻，夏宝先生和“帕尼多（徐州）信息科技有限公司”在中国媒体中出了名。该篇文章主要叙述了由夏宝先生注册的众多商标与国内外企业在中国大陆注册的商标的相似性。如需更多信息，请查看以下链接：https://www.toutiao.com/i6671046521162564110

Despite the above, Xiao Bao and “帕尼多（徐州）信息科技有限公司” are also well-known among Chinese media, because last March 2019 some news was published on the same topic by 今日头条 APP. The article was mainly focus on the similarity of the trademarks registered by Xiao Bao with those brands belonging both to foreign and domestic enterprises based in Mainland China. For more information, feel free to check the following link: [https://www.toutiao.com/i6671046521162564110]

必须明确的是我们无法确认该文章内容的可靠性，因此，我司将此类媒体所传达的内容本身和结论分离开来。我们的目的只是为读者提供一个综合框架，读者可以自己体会，自由决定从这些事件中得出什么样的评价。

It must be clear that we are not able to confirm whether the content of this article can be reliable and, therefore, our Company dissociates itself from the content and conclusion reached by such media. Our intent is to simply provide a comprehensive framework to our readers, who will be free to independently decided what kind of evaluation to draw from such events.

在这我们无法确定夏宝先生和“帕尼多（徐州）信息科技有限公司”（包括但不局限于哪些支持并完成他目标的商标代理机构）的这些活动是否违反上述规则。然而，如果主管此方面的有关当局认为有必要进行进一步的例行检查，这将会是一个有趣的话题。

Here it is not possible to determine whether the actions and behavior performed by Xiao Bao and “帕尼多（徐州）信息科技有限公司” (including but not limited also to those Trademark Agencies that support him during the accomplishment of his goal) may or may not integrate a violation of the afore-mentioned rules. However, it can be an interesting topic on which the Authorities in charge may carried out further routine checks, if they deem it is necessary.

从法律的角度来看，时刻记住《中华人民共和国商标法》的条款和原则是有用的。根据其中的第五十七条，有下列行为之一的可视为侵犯注册商标专用权：

（一）«未经商标注册人的许可，在同一种商品上使用与其注册商标相同的商标的»；

（二）«未经商标注册人的许可，在同一种商品上使用与其注册商标近似的商标，或者在类似商品上使用与其注册商标相同或者近似的商标，容易导致混淆的»；

（三）«销售侵犯注册商标专用权的商品的»；

（四）«伪造、擅自制造他人注册商标标识或者销售伪造、擅自制造的注册商标标识的»；

（五）«未经商标注册人同意，更换其注册商标并将该更换商标的商品又投入市场的»；

（六）«故意为侵犯他人商标专用权行为提供便利条件，帮助他人实施侵犯商标专用权行为的»；

（七）«给他人的注册商标专用权造成其他损害的»。

From a legal point of view, it is useful to keep in mind the clauses and principles state within PRC Trademark Law. According to the Article 57, any of the following acts shall be deemed to infringe the right of exclusive use of a registered trademark:

i.«Using a trademark that is identical with a registered trademark on the same kind of goods without obtaining licensing from the registrant of the registered trademark»; 
ii.«Using a trademark that is similar to a registered trademark on the same kind of goods, or using a trademark that is identical with or similar to the registered trademark on similar goods without obtaining licensing from the registrant of the registered trademark, and is likely to cause confusion»;
iii.«Selling goods that infringe on the exclusive right to the use of a registered trademark»;
iv.«Counterfeiting, or making without authorization, representations of another person's registered trademark, or selling such representations»;
v.«Altering a registered trademark without permission of its owner and selling goods bearing such an altered trademark on the market»;
vi.«Providing, intentionally, convenience for such acts as infringe upon others' exclusive right of trademark use, to facilitate others to commit infringement on the exclusive right of trademark use»
vii.«Impairing in other manners another person's exclusive right to the use of its registered trademark».

值得一提的是，新修订版的《中华人民共和国商标法》将于2019年11月1日生效，主要针对恶意注册现象。根据在高伟绅律师事务所官网（CLIFFORD CHANCE）上一篇新闻通讯发布的信息，新的修正案补充道，“任何无意使用的恶意申请都将被拒绝”

It is worth mentioning that a new amendment of the PRC Trademark Law will come into effect on November 1st, 2019 mainly focus to address registrations filed in bad faith. According to the information released by CLIFFORD CHANCE in its newsletter, the new amendment adds now that «any bad faith applications with no intent to use shall be rejected».

除了首次在立法层面意识到恶意注册问题之外，修正案还考虑采取以下措施来遏制和解决这一问题：

In addition to recognizing the bad faith registration issues for the first time at a legislative level, the amendment contemplates the following measures to curb and tackles this problem:

- 审查员直接驳回

第4条允许商标审查员在审查阶段驳回恶意商标注册申请。考虑到在商标注册表中同一申请方手中的数千抢注商标的典型抢注情况，这一改变大受欢迎。

- Outright rejection by examiners

The Article 4 allows trademark examiners to reject apparent bad faith applications at the examination stage. This is a welcome change considering typical squatting situations involving thousands of squatted marks held by a same application on the trademark registry.

- 品牌所有者的反对/撤销

《中华人民共和国商标法》第33条和第44条规定，不以使用为目的的恶意商标注册申请是反对或撤销的理由之一。该修正案提供了更明确的纠正措施，并有望减轻品牌所有者处理注册冲突的负担。

- Opposition/cancellation by brand owners

Article 33 and 44 of the PRC Trademark Law now codify that making a bad faith application with no intent to use is a ground for opposition or cancellation. The amendment appears to provide clearer redress and hopefully will lessen the burden of the part of brand owners to clear the conflict on the registry.

- 商标代理机构须负法律责任

根据第十九条规定，商标代理机构在知道或者应当知道委托人申请注册的商标违反新修订版的第四条规定(即不以使用为目的的恶意商标注册申请)的情况下，不得接受其委托。第六十八条规定，对恶意申请商标注册的商标代理机构，继续给予行政处罚。

- Trademark agency shall be held liable

According to the Article 19, a trademark agency may not represent an applicant where it knows or should have known that the mark being applied for violates amended Article 4 (i.e. a bad faith application with no intent to use). Article 68 goes on to provide administrative penalties against trademark agencies that take on representations for bad faith registration.

我们希望您能喜欢本篇文章！

We hope you enjoy reading it!