论文部分内容阅读
不久前,北京市高级人民法院下达了针对第3839913号“国匠”商标异议案的终审判决,历时7年的“国匠”商标异议案终于尘埃落定。但是,该案所引发的关于商标审理机构是否可以“主动援引”法律条款进入案件审理的争议却远未结束,留给我们的思考仍在继续。案情介绍2003年12月11日,四川柏合鹿业有限责任公司(以下简称“柏合公司”)在第33类酒类商品上
Not long ago, the Beijing Municipal Higher People’s Court issued a final judgment against the trademark opposition No. 3839913 “Trademark Lawsuit.” The “Guo Jiang” trademark opposition case that lasted for seven years was finally settled. However, the dispute raised by the case on whether the trademark hearing organ can enter the trial of the case according to the law of “active invocation” is far from over and the thinking left to us continues. Case Presentation On December 11, 2003, Sichuan Bahe Deer Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Bahe Co., Ltd.”) in the 33rd category of alcoholic products