The subject was composite trademark No. 47770736
The case concerned application No. 47770736 for “SD SUPER DRY and device” for goods including desiccants. The dispute addressed the connection between the English words and product characteristics, and whether the complete visual mark of words, an abbreviation and a device could identify commercial source.
Liangma’s trademark team distinguished the specific composite application from a word-only mark. Analysis had to address the applied-for mark, designated goods and refusal grounds together. An element’s meaning was one part; the complete visual expression and actual use required further examination.
Organise the mark and business use separately, then connect them
In analysing the mark, the team started with the whole formed by words, an abbreviation and a raindrop device. It addressed the complete visual impression and used dictionaries and search materials to discuss the words’ relationship with product characteristics. The focus was this application as a whole, rather than assessing one word apart from the composite.
For use evidence, the team organised production and sales contracts, packaging, transaction documents, promotional payments and exhibition records. Packaging showed the form used; transactions connected goods, entities and dates; publicity and exhibitions showed communication methods. After defining each material’s role, the team brought them into a connected account of the same application.
Connect each item of evidence with the same mark
Evidence organisation required practical questions: which mark version appeared on packaging; how contract goods matched the designated goods; how transaction participants connected with brand operations; and when promotion occurred. These connections moved the materials beyond a general statement that the business operated and advertised.
The case also distinguished the composite from a word-only mark in separate proceedings. Where elements, visual effects and use materials differ, the argument must return to the current application, identifying which materials concern it and which conclusions belong to another case.
From the refusal dispute to subsequent application stages
Liangma’s trademark team records state that the challenged refusal decision was set aside in both instances, followed by CNIPA re-examination. They also record subsequent preliminary publication and registration progress for desiccants. Recording the litigation outcome separately from later application stages helps explain each step’s objective.
Evidence for a registration dispute and civil enforcement serve different purposes. This page concerns the administrative dispute over this composite mark, focusing on the complete mark, goods and use records. Compensation or recognition from other civil cases involving the same brand is not included in this case’s results.
Prepare your own mark records through accurate matching
Brands preparing an application or responding to a refusal can first organise the complete mark, designated goods, application and decision documents, then put actual use records in date order. Packaging, labels, transactions, promotion and exhibitions should retain original sources and identify the mark version used.
Liangma discusses arguments about the mark, use-evidence organisation and procedural work against the specific refusal grounds and available documents. Separating composite and word-only versions makes communication clearer and gives each later task a defined subject.