The People's Court, while examining and judging whether a trademark under dispute is detrimental to the existing prior rights of others,

http://www.tsailee.com/_en/_ipn/default01.asp?PKID=1428

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 30 mins (2010-07-24 20:36:19 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

and , if the TRADEMARK UNDER DISPUTE had already been registered in the registration office, the Court would order the cancellation of the previous registration and the trademark would be newly registered in the name of the objector.

http://www.lawofficerahimghiyasa.com/inc_index.php?submenu=1...

Brazilian NGOs and decided to cancel the TRADEMARK UNDER DISPUTE. In short, the decision was grounded on the following arguments:

http://documents.irevues.inist.fr/bitstream/handle/2042/2999...

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 39 mins (2010-07-24 20:45:22 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Can also be ''trademark in dispute'':

the TRADEMARK IN DISPUTE was registered in Pakistan for different goods; chocolate powder drink and breads were different goods; and international reputation was not recognised for protection of a trademark in relation to different goods.

http://www.buildingipvalue.com/05_AP/331_334.htm

was whether the right to the TRADEMARK IN DISPUTE, based on use, belonged to the Complainant or to the Respondent, and this was not a question apt to be ...

www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/word/2005/d2005-0544....

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&q="contested trademark"&aq=f&...

- IATE:
Propriété intellectuelle [Council] Entrée entière
EN
challenged use
FR
usage contesté

DROIT [COM] Entrée entière
EN
challenged decision
FR
décision attaquée

-These purposes are accomplished by the use of the "likelihood of confusion" test that asks a simple question: could use of the challenged trademark or domain name cause a consumer of the goods or services to be confused as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the source of the goods or services? If the answer is "yes," the challenged trademark or domain name fails the "likelihood of confusion" test.
www.wardandsmith.com/news/articles/whats_in_a_name.asp

- However, evidence that consumers have been confused is, of course, persuasive in proving that a challenged trademark is likely to cause confusion.
www.goldbergkohn.com/news-publications-64.htm

- The Patent and Trademark Office has no power to prevent a challenged party from using the challenged mark. To obtain a judgment prohibiting the use of a conflicting trademark, the trademark owner must file a separate trademark infringement action. (...) The outcome of a successful litigation will normally result in a court order prohibiting the infringer from using the challenged trademark at all.
www.buildingipvalue.com/n_us/110_113.htm


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 20 hrs (2010-07-25 16:53:35 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

extract from the OHIM's note on the notice of opposition form (Community trademarks office):
"2.3 Challenged Community trade mark application/international registration and extent
of the opposition
The opponent must indicate the number of the challenged Community trade mark application (‘CTMA’) or international registration ('IR') together with the name of the CTM applicant or international registration holder. The information provided by the opponent must unambiguously identify the challenged Community trade mark application or international registration.
If total rejection is claimed an indication to this effect must be made. If rejection is not sought for all goods and services covered by the challenged Community trade mark application or international registration, there must be an express indication of the goods or services against which the opposition is directed."
http://oami.europa.eu/pdf/forms/opposition_note_en.pdf