Tag Archives: confusion

How to Solve the Language Conflict between Foreign and Chinese-Language Trademarks?

Posted on by
资生堂

(By You Yunting) When applying for trademark registration in China, foreign companies are often puzzled by an issue arising out of a translation of a foreign trademark into Chinese being rejected by the Trademark Office due to a language conflict with some preexisting trademark. In our experience, however, if an applicant can prove to the court that its trademark won’t cause confusion with previously registered trademarks, there is a great chance of success in a foreign trademark ultimately being registered. As follows, we will introduce a case where a Chinese court supported the Japanese Shiseido Ltd. Co. in applying for registration of its BéNéFIQUE trademark.

READ MORE

The Confusion of Affiliated Companies shall Assume Joint Liability for Their Debts

Posted on by

(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: Company’s independent status as a legal person is a prerequisite for bearing liabilities independently incurred to the company. If a company loses its independent status as a legal person, shareholders shall bear several and joint liability for the debts of the company or the affiliated company, similarly for debts incurred in affiliated companies.

    In recent years, there are many disputes regarding abuse of company’s independent status as a legal person that many intelligent merchants attempted to evade the payments of debts by abusing the company’s independent status as a legal person or the limited liability of shareholders. In today’s post, we would like to introduce a typical case regarding the confusion of company’s independent status as a legal person on the Cases Guidance of the Supreme People’s Court in China as follows.

READ MORE

Why Shanghai Court Enforces Trademark’s Diligence Obligation on Original Equipment Manufacture?

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) Original Equipment Manufacture (the“OEM”) refers to a commercial model where the Principal person is responsible for the brand, research and design, and marketing, meanwhile, the manufacturer is responsible for production. As a big manufacturing country, OEM is an important way for our manufactured products to participate in international competition. Under China’s Laws, however, it is unclear whether OEM constitutes as a trademark infringement, and local courts have handed out different decisions for this problem. According to the author’s information, Fujian higher court, Zhejiang higher court and Shanghai higher court held that OEM manufacturers does not involve trademark infringement, but Guangdong higher court decided that the OEM manufacturers shall take responsibility for trademark infringement in many cases. The Supreme Court has not yet expressed its opinion towards this problem.

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 this only standard. Even if the court finds that the later trademark application to be similar with the earlier applications, and 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

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

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

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

Posted on by

(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: The determination of a product reputation is usually 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

Could Apple Get Trademark “iWatch” in the Mainland China?

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) The author would first like to apologyze, that as mentioned in the previous post “Why Did Apple Filed the First “iWatch” Trademark In Jamaica?”:

“For the prospect of iWatch application in mainland China… the author would like to stop here, and I will resume the discussion over this issue in tomorrow’s post.”

Yet due to work obligations, the author broke his promise. For the make-up, the author took an early raise this morning to continue his analysis on the issue.  First, the author’s conclusion of the issue is: despite the obstacles of iWatch acquisition, it would not prevent Apple from gaining it.

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

How to Decide the Domain Name Belonging When It Conflicts with Renowned Names?

Posted on by

(By Albert Chen) Our website has introduced readers to the dispute between Ms. Yue and Mr. Zhou Libo, a popular talk show act in China. Yue, the plaintiff, lost the case in the first instance, because the court decided that her domain name registration was likely infringement, and that the domain name shall be Zhou Libo’s property. Yue subsequently appealed to a higher court, and the court in the second instance also refused her demands.

Today, our website would introduce to our readers the standards and methods utilized in determining when infringement involving conflicts between domain name owners and a well known name occurs, based on the judgments of the first and the second instance courts.

READ MORE

Analysis over the Patented Design Dispute between FIAT and GWM in China

Posted on by
u=1885643774,3302847458&fm=23&gp=0_副本

You may click here for the simplified version of this post, if you feel the current one is too long to read.

Case summary:

On June 30, 2003, the Plaintiff FIAT AUTO S.P.A (“FIAT”) applied for a design patent named “automobile” with the State Intellectual Property Organization (the “SIPO”). That application was approved on May 19, 2004 with patent number ZL03353217.6 (the “Patent”).

In November 2006 and April 2007, Great Wall Motor Company Limited (GWM) exhibited its vehicle, the “GreatWall Jingling” in the Beijing Auto Show and Shanghai Auto Show. FIAT alleged that the vehicle exhibited by GWM infringed upon its patented design, and subsequently filed a lawsuit in the Shijiazhuang Intermediate People’s Court, demanding an apology and compensation.

READ MORE

Different Judicial Opinions from Cases on Name Trademarks and Domain Name Conflicts in China

Posted on by

By Albert Chen

In the first half of this year, our website posted an essay discussing the domain name dispute heard in the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court (“Shanghai Court”) concerning the renowned comedian Zhou Libo. Recently, the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court (“Beijing Court”) decided a very similar case. Yet there were very different standards used to decide the different cases in Beijing and Shanghai. The most critical point is the determination of whether, after receiving the invitation to buy the domain name, the rights holder had bad faith during registration and use of the domain name.

READ MORE

Qiaodan Sports Cancelled Trademarks Registerred in Jordan Children’s Name

Posted on by

By Si Weijiang

According to a news report, Qiaodan Sports made an announcement in recent, that it has canceled the trademarks registered matching the Chinese translation of Jordan’s Children’s names. Also it’s mentioned in the statement that, Qiaodan Sports has found many trademarks with Qiaodan （乔丹）contained, therefore for the protection of its brand, so far the company has registered 129 trademarks for the defense strategy. However for the defense purposes, these trademarks have never been used and Qiaodao has no intension to use them in the future. In our opinions, the active cancellation by Qiaodan is a right step on the course for the name of foreign people shall also be protected in China.

READ MORE