(By You Yunting) In the end of 2013, the Beijing Higher People’s Court rejected Apple Inc.’s trademark opposition towards “苹果” trademark (read “Pingguo” in Chinese and referring to “Apple” in English) under Class 28 for game console against Zhongshan Readboy Electronics Co., Ltd. Thereafter, Apple Inc. has gone through 4 procedures, including the Trademark Office’s opposition proceeding, TRAB’s review procedure and two administrative actions and ultimately lost the “苹果” trademark under Class 28 for game console. The following are abstracts from the judgment of the final trial and our comments.
(By You Yunting) Kellogg Company, an American multinational food manufacturing company, produces cereal and convenience foods, including cookies, crackers and fruit-flavored snacks. However, in China, someone tried to apply for “Kellogg” as a trademark under Class 41 for educational services. After discovering this, Kellogg Company filed an opposition, but suffered a setback at first in that both the TRAB and Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court rejected its claim. After Kellogg Company appealed, Beijing Higher People’s Court supported its claims, on the ground that the disputed trademark infringed the prior enterprise name of Kellogg Company.
(By You Yunting) It is well known that GAP is a famous brand in clothing. However, in China, someone attempted to register “GAP” under Class 9 for eyewear products as a trademark. GAP has been defeating similar trademark squatting for over 20 years.
Introduction to the Case:
Applicant of a retrial (Plaintiff in the first instance and Appellant the in second instance): GAP (ITM) INC.
Respondent (Defendant in the first instance and Appellee in the second instance): Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (the “TRAB”)
(By Luo Yanjie) Today we would like to introduce a typical case regarding Chrysler Group’s countering a subsequent “free-rider” who attempted to register “JEEP” trademark under Class 2 for oil paint through the anti-dilution legal protection on well-known trademarks.
Introduction to the Case:
Plaintiff: Chrysler Group LLC (the “Chrysler”)
Defendant: Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (the “Trademark Office”) and Guangdong-based Dongguan Xiehe Chemical Co., Ltd (the “Xiehe Chemical”)
(By You Yunting) Earlier in November, China’s Trademark Office announced canceling Burberry’s trademark of the “Haymarket Check” in China, known as iconic tan, black and red tartan (the “disputed trademark”), under Class 18 for packaging and bags because Burberry had not even used the registered trademark for over three years in China by the media.
A Chinese bag and apparel maker Polo Santa Roberta, who had disputes with Burberry for many years, filed an application with the China’s Trademark Office for revoking the disputed trademark that Burberry had not used for over three years. The State Trademark Office decided to revoke Burberry’s trademark due to inadequate evidence from Burberry after consideration, but Burberry applied for review with the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, triggering heated debates in China.
When handling a dispute between trademark and copyright, Chinese courts always apply a rather high standard to determine whether works protected under trademark law will also receive protection under the copyright law. Our website previously discussed this question in the posts Analysis on Proof Requirements in Figurative Trademark Infringing Others’ Copyright Cases by China Court and Why the Calligraphic Character’s Copyright Failed to Defeat Trademark Right.Today, we’d like to introduce a case regarding conflicts between a work of fine art and a trademark, due to the identical combination of Chinese characters and English letters.
(By Albert Chen) Past essays on this websites have introduced the design patent dispute between Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (“Hongda”), Hebei Xin Kai Auto Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (“Hebei Xin Kai”) and Shuanghuan Auto Co., Ltd. In another dispute involving Hongda and Xin Kai, the Supreme People’s Court has rendered a decision on jurisdiction. This dispute deserves attention and will be introduced in today’s post.
In 2005, Hongda and Dongfeng Hongda Auto Manufacturing (Wuhan) Co., Ltd. (“Dong Feng”) filed a lawsuit in the Beijing Higher People’s Court (the “Beijing Higher Court”), claiming that Hebei Xin Kai, Gaobeidian Xin Kai Auto Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (“Gaobeidian Xin Kai”), and Beijing Xin Sheng Bai Li Auto Trading Co., Ltd. (“Beijing Xin Sheng”) infringed their design patent. The Beijing Higher Court accepted the case.
(By Albert Chen) Past essays on this websites have introduced the design patent dispute between Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (“Hongda”), Hebei Xin Kai Auto Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (“Hebei Xin Kai”) and Shuanghuan Auto Co., Ltd. In another utility model patent dispute involving Hongda and Xin Kai, the Supreme People’s Court has rendered a decision on jurisdiction in design patent disputes. This dispute deserves attention and concentration and will be introduced in today’s post.
As reported by Mr. Chi Qiang, the chief justice of Beijing Higher People’s Court,on the 5th Session of the 13th People’s Congress of Beijing, there have judged 12, 269 IPR cases in Beijing courts of each level, which is a year by year increase of 16.3% and occupies 22.3% of all around China. For these cases, both total amount and new type case are rank first in all the courts nationwide.
Other recommended posts on our website:
1. The Actual Term of Trademark Registration in China
2. How to Apply for the Trademark Record in China Custom
3. How to improve the success rate of trademark registration in China?
4. Matters for Attention in Trademark Refusal Review in China
5. Introduction of China’s Legal System of Trademark Renewal
6. Introduction on the Regulations concerning the Capital Contribution in IPR or Domain Name in China
7. The Copyright Registration in China Could Be FREE?
8. China Copyright Protection Term Longer than EU’s?
9. Matters for Attention in the Patent Preliminary Injunction Application in China(I)