Category Archives: Non-litigation

How did Lenovo Utilize Its Well-known Trademark to Defense against a “Free-Rider”?

Posted on by
图片1

(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: In today’s post, we will introduce a typical case discussing Lenovo’s defense against a “free rider” utilizing its well-known trademark. In this case, when Lenovo claimed cross-class protection for its Lenovo trademark, the court established two rules in its decision, which are as follows:

First, “misleading the public and causing injury to the interests of the registrant of a well-known trademark” is a legal basis for whether or not a well-known trademark may receive cross-class protection.

READ MORE

Why did the Trademark Office Reject Audi’s “A4” Trademark Application?

Posted on by

(By Luo Yanjie) The Audi A4, A6 and other series of Audi cars are popular classic cars in China. However, Audi’s trademark applications for the A4, A6 etc., are always rejected. In today’s post, we will introduce a typical case regarding these trademarks, followed by our analysis for our readers.

Introduction to the Case:

In January 2007, Audi China filed an application with the State Trademark Office to register its “A4” mark (the “disputed trademark”). The State Trademark Office upheld that “A4”, a common vehicle model, lacked distinctiveness. Based on this finding, the Trademark Office rejected Audi’s application. After Audi applied for a trademark reexamination with the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (the “TRAB”), the TRAB held that, the disputed trademark comprised of the English Letter “A” and Arabic numeral “4” was so simple that it would be difficult to distinguish the function of the source of goods; in addition, it lacked distinctiveness, a requirement pursuant to the Trademark Law. Again, based on these findings, the TRAB rejected Audi’s application for reexamination.

READ MORE

Introduction to the 2013 Trademark Law, Part 2

Posted on by

(By Zhan Yi) On August 30, 2013, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress promulgated Decisions of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress Concerning Alterations to the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China, which shall be implemented on May 1, 2014. Our website previously translated the Full text of 2013 China Trademark Law, we provided a Comparison Version highlighting the differences between the 2001 and 2013 Trademark Law. In today’s post, our website will introduce and discuss the revised content within the 2013 Trademark Law. Without further ado, we will now move on to the second part of our examination of the 2013 Trademark Law.

READ MORE

Introduction to the 2013 China Trademark Law, Part I

Posted on by

(By Zhan Yi) On August 30, 2013, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress promulgated the Decisions of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress Concerning Alterations to the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China, which shall be implemented on May 1, 2014. Our website has already translated the Full text of 2013 China Trademark Law in a previous post, and compiled and provided a comparative version highlighting the differences between the 2001 Trademark Law and 2013 Trademark Law. Starting with today’s post, we will introduce and discuss the most important revisions and changes found in the 2013 Trademark Law. In today’s post, we will introduce the first part.

READ MORE

Why did the Court not Approve the Trademark Coexistence Agreement?

Posted on by
图片1

（By Luo Yanjie）Abstract: Current laws have no provisions as to whether a trademark coexistence agreement made by and between the trademark holder with a prior trademark and the trademark applicant with a latter trademark could impact the validity of the latter trademark. Under such circumstances, the courts shall consider and decide whether to approve the above-mentioned agreement. Where litigation concerning trademark ownership affirmation takes the form of an administrative suit, the courts shall, within the scope of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board’s (the “TRAB”) administrative acts, decide whether its administrative acts are valid and rational.

READ MORE

Why could China’s Courts Decide for Audi’s “TT” to Apply for a Trademark?

TM截图未命名

(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: as for whether trademarks are similar, many times, it is decided on the subjective cognition of the judge. Furthermore, considering the fact of the distinctiveness of a trademark, whether the “TT” trademark has distinctiveness is still in doubt.

Automobile models are always composed of simple numbers and English letters. Sometimes manufacturers of bestselling cars once hoped to register these simple models as trademarks but all failed (for example, A6, A4, etc.). However, Audi canceled the rules handled down by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board through administrative litigation processing, thus possibly obtaining trademark registration:

READ MORE

Full text of 2013 China Trademark Law

Notice: On August 30, 2013, China issued a new revision of Trademark Law which will come into force on May 1, 2014. We spent a week to translates the new revision of the Trademark Law into English and post it today. If any one needs to reprint our translated revision on web, please note the following content on the reprint page: This law is translated by Bridge IP Law Commentary http://www.chinaiplawyer.com.

                  Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China

   ( Adopted at the 24th Session of the Standing Committee of the Fifth National People ‘s Congress on August 23, 1982, as amended according to the “Decision on the Revision of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China”  adopted at the 30th Session of the Standing Committee  of the Seventh National People’s Congress on February 22, 1993, and  the “Decision on the Revision of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China” adopted at the 24th Session of  the Standing Committee of the Ninth National People’s’ Congress on October 27 2001, and amended for the third time according to the “Decision on the Revision of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China” adopted at the 4th Session of  the Standing Committee of the Twelfth National People’s’ Congress on August 30, 2013 )

READ MORE

Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (2013, Comparison Version)

Noctie: On August 30, 2013, China issued a new revision of Trademark Law which will come into force on May 1, 2014. We spent a week to translates the new revision of the Trademark Law into English and post it today. If any one needs to reprint our translated revision on web, please note the following content on the reprint page: This law is translated by Bridge IP Law Commentary http://www.chinaiplawyer.com.

To help foreign friends better understanding of Chinese laws, today we would first publish a comparison of different versions between the 2001 version and the 2013 version.

READ MORE

An Unregistered Trademark can be Licensed to Another Party for a Fee

Posted on by
图片1

Abstract: An unregistered trademark may lawfully be licensed to another person. If any third party had registered the trademark, the licensor’s actions will constitute a breach of license contract. Except where the licensor has committed obvious fraud, the validity and effectiveness of such a license contract upon unregistered trademarks cannot be denied.

(By Luo Yanjie) Generally, a trademark in a trademark license should be registered before it is licensed to any other party. However, in today’s post, we will discuss a particular case there the trademark licensed was unregistered at the time the license was concluded. After being heard by two courts and the Supreme Court, such a trademark license contract was ruled to be valid. The following is our analysis.

READ MORE

Fair Use of a Registered Trademark does not Constitute Infringement

Posted on by

Abstract: fair use of a registered trademark does not constitute infringement, but users shall both have no intent to infringe and accord with the objective facts. The court facing those cases shall apply  Trademark Law to consider the original intention of Trademark Law instead of applying a rigid formula to determine that the infringement shall rely on “whether the results cause confusion”．

(By Luo Yanjie) Generally speaking, using a registered trademark without permission constitutes trademark infringement. However, a few exceptions to the general rule still exist. For example, in today’s post a typical case will be introduced.

READ MORE

A Trademark Infringement Dispute Caused by Recycled Budweiser Bottles

Posted on by

(By You Yunting)To save costs, Chinese beer manufacturers have been using recycled bottle to refill beer, and while most large-scale beer manufacturers will engrave their trademarks into their glass bottles, as well as recycle their own bottles. However, for small-scale beer manufacturers, such practices are impractical, and when small beer manufacturers use other larger manufacturer’s bottles with their trademarks, all the ingredients for trademark infringement are present. In today’s post, we will introduce to you two cases heard by two different courts concerning the same issue. 

READ MORE

Why Wallet and Clothes in Different Trademark Classes Would be Taken by China Court as Similar Products?

Posted on by

(By Luo Yanjie) When registering trademark in China, the applicant shall first determine the classification of the trademark to be registered. Class 18 of the Classification of Goods and Services include goods such as leather and artificial leather, goods made from these materials and not included in other classes, cases, travelling bags, and umbrellas. Goods under Class 25 includes clothing, footwear, and headgear. Looking at it closely,  Class 18 is classified by its physical attribute, while Class 25 is classified by the purpose of the goods. Would the two Classes constitute similar goods for any particular product? In today’s post, a specific case would be introduced to analyze this question.

READ MORE

Is an “A+B” Combined Trademark Substantially Similar to a Separate “B” Trademark?

Posted on by

(By Luo Yanjie) The Taiwan-based Yilan Food Industry Co., Ltd. (“Yilan”) is a well-known food manufacturing company, and owns the registered trademark “旺旺” (read as “Wang Wang” in Chinese) in several classes. Alibaba (China) Co., Ltd. (“Alibaba”) is a renowned e-commerce company based in Mainland China; it owns and maintains a subsidiary that develops and promotes its instant messaging software called “淘宝旺旺” (read literally as “Tao Bao Wang Wang” in Chinese). When Alibaba attempted to register the trademark for its software application, Yilan immediately filed a protest against it. In today’s post, we will concentrate primarily on this case. The main issue surrounding the case is relatively simple: a trademark can be considered a type of rare “resource” for its owner to make use of, and if in this case the trademark “旺旺” is already owned and registered by another entity, does it seem reasonable that a subsequent registrant simply attaches the prefix “淘宝” to it to avoid inevitable issues surrounding confusion as a result of the similarity of the two?

READ MORE

Can A Subsequently Applied Trademark be Registered if the Owner of A Previously Registered Similar Trademark Does Not Oppose?

Posted on by

Abstract: Approval from a reference trademark holder in supporting the registration of a subsequently registered similar trademark is one of the key elements taken into consideration by administrative organs and the People’s Court in deciding whether to grant trademark rights to the latter, based primarily on Article 28 of the Trademark Law.

(By Luo Yanjie) China’s Trademark Law adopts the “first to file” principle, and in general, when a later applied-for trademark appears to be substantially similar to a previously registered trademark, it will not be granted exclusive rights in the use of the mark. In the case introduced in this post, the latter applicant succeeded in its trademark application due to approval by a previously registered holder of a similar trademark. The details of the case are as follows:

READ MORE

Why Trademark “K” Failed in Its Application?

Posted on by

Abstract:

(By Luo Yanjie) China trademark application procedure follows the principle of “first application,” but when two trademarks are substantially similar, a subsequent  trademark could be considered as distinctive as the previously registered one through a sound reputation among consumers; taking this into account, and the possibility that such reputation may well differentiate a subsequent trademark substantially similar to a previously registered one causes one to consider whether such reputation would be worthy of the granting of trademark rights and protection.

READ MORE