"the facts are that the plaitits have acquired the Tight of exclusive Use of the Lion and Sun Trademark {or gaamanties in cass G1 (Lamp and Lampshade Group) of Art 31 of the Belaled Regulation relating to. the Enforcement of Trade Marie Law by Feglstering it" with. the Bureau Trademarks. Tu 1031 the Sung Mink Gas. Mantle. Factory "of Shanghat hereinafter for brevity sake called Sung Ming Factory) applied for Bistrition of ya trademark d Mountain and Lion Brand which wer exclusively "used on gusmantles 100 fand__which wat approved. by the urea of Trademarks and. publishes Inthe trademark Gazette No. 81.
"The plains' repeated opposition thereto were dlamissed by the Bureau of Trademarks. The pints were Sot sntisied and! appealed to" the Ministry of Industry. The decision tu appeal canceled the approved. trade mark No. 8816 of. the Sung. Ming Factory. in view of the fact that the Sung. iting "Factory sill used the Mountain and Lion trademark on their gasmantle, the plaintiffs com Blained to. the French. Municipal Police in April 1994 while the Sung Ming' Factory had already lodged Fe-appeal to. the Execulve Yuan tofore December' 1982
"The decision in re-appeal dated August 10 104 of the Executive Yuan rar that the registration "of the Boproved. trade mark No. 0316 '1d Sung" Ming Factory was granted Alter, serve of the decane: Spent, the piaintiis. brought admin-
important' points of the eontentons izratve solon, in is court The of the plaintiffs and defendants, ex Sept the dispute as to the period for fling reasons of appeal and. whether Kus proper to. bring. administrative Action which te Unnecessary for dis-Cision and determination as the same found as having nothing to do with the contents ofthe case are now sisted in detail as follows Question of Colour "The Plaintiff's action is based on the grounds:—The decision of the executive Yuan that the approved trademark No. 9316 of Sung Ming Factory is not similar with the registered trademark No. 11736 of the Plaintifis because the colour and the ize of these two trademarks are Aifferent is not only absurd from the Jpoint of view of common sense but also contrary to the Trademark Law. that the said trade mark of the Hah Kee Factory was first registered with the Industrial Bureau, Canton, from which they obtained Certideate Registration No. 145," which Fegistered at Nanking with the Bureau of Trade Marks and a now Certificate of Registration No. 12576 was issued fu January of the 19th Year (1930)
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.