As indicated, cited mark 4 and cite

如前所述，引用标记4和引用标记5无效，因此主要障碍包括引用标记1，引用标记2，引用标记3和引用标记6。为克服引用，应当确立商标相似性声明或全部应清除障碍物。<br><br>关于商标差异的主张–我们担心争论商标差异的空间非常有限。如我们之前的电子邮件中所述，所申请的商标由“ CO”和“ MEDICAL”组成，其中“ MEDICAL”作为描述性词没有区别。“ CO”是所申请商标中最独特的元素。比较申请商标和四个有效引用商标中最有特色的元素“ CO”，它们之间略有不同。

As indicated, cited mark 4 and cited mark 5 have become invalid, thus the main obstacles are cited mark 1, cited mark 2, cited mark 3 and cited mark 6. To overcome the citation, the claim on trademark dissimilarity should be established or all the obstacles should be removed.<br><br>Claim on trademark dissimilarity – We are afraid the space in arguing trademark dissimilarity is quite limited. As mentioned in our previous email, the applied-for mark is composed of "CO" and "MEDICAL", in which "MEDICAL" is indistinctive as a descriptive word. "CO" is the most distinctive element in the applied-for mark. Compare the most distinctive element "CO" of the applied-for mark and the four valid cited marks, there is slight difference between them. They are similar trademarks in respect of similar goods.

如图所示，引标4及引标5已失效，因此主要障碍为引标1、引标2、引标3及引标6。为克服引证，应确立商标相异性的主张或排除一切障碍。<br>商标相异性的主张——我们担心，争论商标相异性的空间相当有限。如前一封邮件所述，申请商标由“CO”和“MEDICAL”组成，其中“MEDICAL”是一个模糊的描述性单词“CO”是商标申请中最具特色的元素。将申请商标中最具特色的成分“CO”与四个有效引用商标进行比较，两者之间略有差异。它们是类似商品的类似商标。<br>