Zheng Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc.

Facing disputed marks with words in or originated in foreign language and foreign cultural symbol, judges should first get to know the true meaning of the words and the symbol or they are incapable of making any judgement. However, TTAB and CAFC, ignorant of the meaning of the words and symbol in the marks, took no time to learn the true meaning of them but conveniently accepted the false and misleading definition of them provided by one party in dispute and made their judgements. Their judgements that sound perfect to themselves for they executed their best discretion based on the existing trademark laws, are absurd to anyone who knows the true meaning of the words and the symbol in the marks. It made TTAB and CAFC laughing stocks in the eyes of those who know the foreign language and cultural symbol in the marks. A loophole in the US trademark laws needs to be fixed: in judging (examining) disputed trademarks involving words in or originated in foreign languages and foreigi cultural symbols or evidences presented in foreign languages, TTAB and CAFC must be consisted of at least one judge who knows the languages and the cultures presented in the marks and evidences, or opinions of experts on the foreign languages and cultures should be sought to prevent erroneous decisions.