Li Chen and Willber Pan's trendy "MLGB" were rated vulgar, and trademarks were declared invalid.

Beijing high court believes that the controversial trademark in this case is composed of the letter "MLGB".

Under the circumstance of network environment, there is a specific group that has a bad influence on the meaning of "MLGB". It should be determined that the controversial trademark itself has a negative meaning and a low style.

At the same time, taking into consideration the fact that Shanghai Jun Ke applied for "caonima" trademark while applying for a controversial trademark, its intention to cater for the unhealthy cultural tendency in a kitsch way was more obvious. In the actual use process, there existed a vulgar and vulgar commercial propaganda for the controversial trademark.

Therefore, the court held that the original judgment was clear and the law was correct, so it rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

In fact, the trademark dispute began in 2015.

In 2010, Shanghai Jun Ke Trading Co., Ltd. submitted an application for "MLGB" trademark to the trademark office. The application was classified into 25 categories (clothing, shoes and hats).

In 2012, Jun guest trade registered the "MLGB" trademark successfully.

In October 9, 2015, the temporary lawyers group composed of four lawyers from Shanghai, Yao Hongjun, Meng Yujie, Liu Huihui and Ding Fangjie launched an application for invalidation of the "MLGB" trademark of Jun guest trade to the business jury.

In November 9, 2016, the Shang jury made a verdict of Invalidation on the "MLGB" trademark.

For this reason, Willber Pan, Li Chenfang, once said that "MLGB" is the abbreviation of English "MY LIFE" S GETTING BETTER.

The court of intellectual property of Beijing rejected the claim of Shanghai Jun Ke company in first instance, and Shanghai Jun Yu company appealed.

In March 1, 2019, the Chinese referee's official website published the administrative judgment of the second instance of the Shanghai Jun guest Trade Co., Ltd. and the Trademark Review Committee of the State Administration for Industry and commerce. The judgment shows that the second instance of the Beijing high court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.