Category Archives: Non-litigation

Why Did Apple Filed the First “iWatch” Trademark In Jamaica?

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) According to media reports, Apple Inc. (“Apple”) has filed for “iWatch” trademark in several countries and regions, including: Japan, Mexico, Russia and Taiwan. Searching the trademark database in mainland China and Taiwan, the author discovered that Apple filed its iWatch trademark in Taiwan in June 2013.As for the trademark application in mainland China, because it takes a longer period of time for trademark application to be recorded on China Trademark Office’s website, we could only check the information concerning applications made several months ago. Therefore, if Apple filed the application in early June, then we would have no way to confirm it right now. Furthermore, we have found no records regarding Apple’s iWatch trademark application in China. The following are information of Apple’s “iWatch” trademark application in Taiwan:

READ MORE

Why Did the Supreme People’s Court Changed Its Attitude towards Revoking Trademarks When It Is Unused for 3 Years

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) China is a heavily administrated and controlled country. If administrative approval is not obtained, business activity such as producing and selling of Alcoholic beverages, medicine, etc.,  could be ruled to be invalid by the court. According to the Trademark Law of China, once the trademark has not been used for three continuous years, it could be eliminated. There is a significant amount of people who uses their right to their trademark however, many people fail to obtain the proper administrative approval or violates administrative rules. This brings us to the issue of  whether or not such a trademark should be removed even though it has been used. For this kind of cases, we find an example in the 10 annual cases of 2011 promulgated by the Supreme People’s Court of China. In that case, the Supreme Court overturned its opinions expressed in the previous year, “Kangwang Trademark Dispute”, in which the court determined that despite a shortage of administrative approval, the using of the trademark is sufficient according to the Trademark Law. 

READ MORE

Why Did the Court Verify the Validity of a Company’s Trademark Transfer 5 Years after Its Cancellation?

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) The Luzhou Qian Nian Liquor Co., Ltd. (“Company L”) found that its competitor, the Shandong-based Zhu Ge Jia Liquor Co., Ltd. (“Company S”) acquired three trademarks from a company that had its registration for the marks cancelled five years prior to the trademark transfer. Following this, Company L filed a request to have the trademark revoked, because it had not been used for a continuous three-year period. However, the Trademark Office denied the application, and Company L requested a review of the decision, which was also rejected, leading Company L to ultimately file an administrative lawsuit. In the lawsuit, Company L was equally unsuccessful, and the court refused its demands in both the first and second instance. Following a series of rejections, Company L then appealed the case to the Supreme People’s Court (“Supreme Court”) for a rehearing. 

READ MORE

How to Judge the Validity of Trademark Transfer without Inner Approval of the Company in China

Posted on by

Abstract:

(By Albert Chen) When a company’s trademark agent transfers a trademark without approval, a judgment of the validity of said transfer requires not only a consideration of the presence (or lack of) company approval, but also a determination of whether there was good faith when considering the third party in the transfer. When it can be shown that no inner-company approval was made, and that the transaction was not undertaken in good faith, such a transfer will invariably be considered invalid.

READ MORE

Introduction to A Case on Whether OEM Would Constitute Infringement in China

Posted on by

Abstract:

(By Luo Yanjie) For the infringement caused by OEM in China, different courts hold different opinions in China, and in this essay you could see a case describe the infringement determination. The determination of trademark infringement should be subjected to whether or not potential consumers would be confused when making their decision to purchase the product. If the potential consumer is not confused by the product, then it should not be considered as an infringement.

READ MORE

Trademark “Zhuomuniao”: Cancelled for Squatting Though It Has Been Put into Use

Posted on by

(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: when applying for a trademark, the trademark office will judge the similarity of the submitted trademark based on the International Classification of the Trademark Registration for Product and Service (the “Classification”), but the court does not use that as the only standard. Even if the court finds that the later trademark application to be similar with the earlier applications, if the trademark office approves the later applied trademark’s application, the earlier trademark holder shall have no right to demand the later user for any damages.

READ MORE

Is the Territorial Scope of a Famous Brand Limited to Chinese Territories?

Posted on by

(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: to determine whether two trademarks are similar to each other, the main consideration is determining the distinguishing features of the mark. However, to determine a famous or well-known product, such a determination is typically limited to Chinese territories, while on the other hand the reputation of a mark may involve consideration of overseas reputation.

Freeriding among Chinese manufacturers is unfortunately a very common and severe issue, and for most well known foreign companies, there may be situations in which they have not paid adequate attention to the Chinese market, and ergo have provided insufficient attention to policing its marks within the realm of IPR protection. As a result, the vast majority of foreign brands are helpless in facing rampant infringement.

READ MORE

Would the Cancellation of the Applicant Lead to the Invalidity of Trademark Application in China?

Posted on by

(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: trademark application may take a long time. If the applicant encounters any change on its subject qualification, it shall handle the trademark transfer procedure as soon as possible, or otherwise the trademark could be cancelled.

It normally takes about one year from submitting the trademark application to the right granting. If during the application process it encounters any opposition, the time it takes for right granting adjudication would be much longer, possibly extending to several years. While during that period, the applicant may face a change on its subject qualification, and then will the trademark application be influenced in such a situation? In today’s post, you will see a typical case that we would like to share it with our readers.

READ MORE

When Can a Trademark Be Applied for Following the Cancellation of A Similar Mark in China?

Posted on by

(By Luo Yanjie) Article 46 of the Trademark Law has regulated how long one must wait until a cancelled or revoked trademark can be reapplied for, and yet due to the complexity of the application procedures, in the process of applying, an applicant could easily be confused or mistaken.

Case Summary

On January 13, 2003, Wang Huilan applied for the registration of a design trademark, numbered 3432984, specifically for Class 18, which includes both bags and briefcases. On July 1, 2004, the Trademark Office under the State Administration of Commerce and Industry (the “Trademark Office”) issued a Notice of Trademark Application Refusal, stating that the applied trademark was similar to already registered ones, and thereby Wang Huilan’s application was refused. Dissatisfied with this result, Wang filed a review application with the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (the “Board”). In July 2007, the reference trademark judged in Wang’s application was cancelled. On August 22, 2007, the Board refused the review application. Ever more dissatisfied with this decision, Wang filed an administrative lawsuit.

READ MORE

Would Those First Users Involved in OEM Constitute Trademark Infringement?

Posted on by
360截图-30623479

(By Albert Chen) The author once introduced readers to different judicial opinions adopted in the Shanghai and Guangzhou courts over whether trademark infringement could be caused by an OEM. According to a ruling handed down by the Fujian Higher People’s Court in 2012, which came to the attention of the author recently, the judge confirmed that an OEM could lead to trademark infringement, but at the same time, the court also decided that no liability shall be taken by the first user of the mark, for no confusion would be made. As for that point, the author certainly has a different opinion.

READ MORE

Can “屌丝” Serve as a Trademark or Online Game Name in China?

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) Recently, Mr. Shi Yuzhu, the senior executive of Giant Inc. has once again entered the flurry of public opinion. The main reason is that he claimed on his Weibo that the company has applied for 屌丝 as a trademark, and he also joked that anyone using the term must pay the company one yuan. (屌丝 (diaosi) means pubic hair in Chinese, but it has been used on the internet to popularly refer to losers). Curious about Mr. Shi’s words, the author checked the Trademark Office’s database for the application for 屌丝 in classes concerning online games. Perhaps because the application was filed recently, there is no indication of Giant Inc.’s application in the database. But, the author also found that Giant’s opponent, Suzhou Woniu Company, has applied for the trademark 屌丝侠 in Classes 9, 38, 41, and 42 on May of 2012, and all of these application are related to online games.

READ MORE

Why Glasses and Clothing Were Deemed Similar Products Under the Trademark Law, Part II

Posted on by

 (By Luo Yanjie) Today, we will introduce all of our opinions on yesterday’s case.

Lawyer’s opinions:

The reason why the two courts made different conclusions than the Trademark Office and the Board is that the court does not blindly follow the Similar Products and Services Form. With that in mind, we will share our opinions on the legal issues in this case:

1. The preconditions for trans-class protection of well-known trademarks

Article 13 of the Trademark Law provides:

“Where a trademark for which the application for registration is filed for use on non-identical or dissimilar goods is a reproduction, imitation, or translation of the well-known mark of another person that has been registered in China, misleads the pub1ic, and is likely to create prejudice to the interests of the well-known mark registrant, it must be rejected for registration and prohibited from use.”

READ MORE

Why Glasses and Clothing Were Deemed Similar Products Under the Trademark Law, Part I

Posted on by

(By Luo Yanjie) Today and tomorrow’s posts will introduce an administrative lawsuit recently decided by Chinese courts. The greatest focus point in the case is that the courts broke the barrier between trademark classes to hold that glasses and clothing are similar classes of trademark application.

According to China’s Trademark Law, trademark applications in China follow the “first application” principle. This means that for similar products whoever applies for a trademark first owns it and receives protection in that class, except for well-known trademarks, which receive cross-class protection. To determine what classes are identical or similar, the Trademark Office, Trademark Adjudication and Review Board (the “Board”), and other administrative institutions follow the Similar Products and Services Form that they promulgated. In practice, however, courts do not blindly follow this form. Today’s case is a prime example of the different opinions held by and different results reached by administrative organs and courts.

READ MORE

Is It Illegal For Directors in Company to Squat Trademarks in China?

Posted on by
A0132

 (By Luo Yanjie) As regulated in Article 15 of the Trademark Law:

“Where any agent or representative registers, in its or his own name, the trademark of a person for whom it or he acts as the agent or representative without authorization therefrom, and the latter raises opposition, the trademark shall be rejected for registration and prohibited from use.”

But in judicial practice, the agent or representative has a very vague definition and limit, and interpretation regarding the meaning of “authorized” is currently in dispute. Our website once introduced and analyzed the issues concerned in the post “Whether Sales Agents Are Included in the Trademark Agent Squatting Articles of China Trademark Law”, and in today’s post we would like to introduce the opinions of the court having analyzed the case from a different aspect. The details are as follows:

READ MORE

Why Couldn’t the Trademark “Bond” Be Applied to Contraceptives?

Posted on by

(By Albert Chen) The Beijing High People’s Court (the “Beijing High Court”) established the “merchandising right” in a 2011 judgment on an administrative dispute between the Trademark Adjudication and Review Board (the “Board”) and DANJAQ, LLC (the “DANJAQ”). That was the first judicial definition of the right, and the first time it was included as a protected “first right.” The decision can be considered a clarification of the “merchandising right” by the judicial organs as well as broadening the scope of first rights.

READ MORE