Tag Archives: the trademark law

How China Court Judges the Conduct of Using a Trademark as Enterprise Name?

Posted on by
miergu

(By Luo Yanjie) In practice, for the purpose of free-riding well-known brands, many operators often use another’s trademarks as their enterprise name to confuse consumers. As such, these conducts still constitute trademark infringement. In today’s post, we will introduce a typical case concerning that using another’s trademarks as enterprise names may constitute trademark infringement.

 Introduction to the Case:

Plaintiff: Shanghai Jinsu Industrial Co., Ltd (the “Jinsu Co., Ltd”)

1st Defendant: Miergu Pipe Industrial Company (liter translated from “美尔固管业公司”)

READ MORE

Why China Court Decision the Use of Registered Trademark to Non-infringement?

Posted on by
bianzuiba

(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract:A trademark shall be distinctive and a rational use of the characters in a trademark does not constitute infringement. The 2013 version of the Trademark law clearly stipulates that where an identical or similar trademark has been used in connection with the same goods or similar goods by others before the registrant’s application, the exclusive right holder of said registered trademark shall have no right to prohibit other people from using the aforesaid trademark from continuous use of such trademark within the original scope, but may request its users to add proper marks for distinction.

READ MORE

Why Couldn’t the “CASTEL” Trademark Prevent AnotherFrom Registering As Enterprise Name?

Posted on by
castel

(By Luo Yanjie ) Abstract: Generally, the trademark-right and the right of an enterprise-name are independent of each other. However, these rights, which also act as an enterprise-business-mark-right and are comprised of an intellectual property right, are likely to be so similar in their nature and characteristics that they may objectively cause disputes. To reach a judgment on whether there has been a breach of the principle of good faith and recognized commercial-morality as regulated in the anti-unfair Competition Law, the court would make a judgment based on the particular circumstances of a case.

READ MORE

Why the TRAB Removed the Johnson & Johnson’s “ONETOUCH” Trademark?

Posted on by
Johnson-Johnson

(By You Yunting) U.S. drugmaker Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) and Guilin Zhonghui Biotechnology Co., Ltd are in fierce competitions on blood glucose test strips in China. Johnson & Johnson has always accused Guilin Zhonghui Biotechnology Co., Ltd of producing counterfeits of Johnson & Johnson’s OneTouch blood glucose test strips used by patients with diabetes, but did not receive support of the courts in responding litigations. Recently, Guilin Zhonghui Biotechnology Co., Ltd won this dispute through revoking Johnson & Johnson’s ONETOUCH trademark. The followings are the case introduction and our analysis.

READ MORE

Why could an Unregistered Trademark Obtain Protection in Beijing Higher People’s Court?

Posted on by

(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: To judge whether two goods are similar, generally is ruled upon the basis of the Chinese Goods and Services Classification and then on the courts’ interpretation of different cases and facts. The trademark application shall not be a means to register a mark that is already in use by another party and enjoys substantial influence, and shall also not infringe upon another party’s prior existing rights.

The statement “Goods and service are similar” refers to the goods and services that are associated with each other and thus are likely to produce confusion among the relevant public (our previous post, Why the “NEXT” Trademark could Receive Cross-class Protection in China had introduced similar problems), in which the actual situations conflict with the Chinese Goods and Services Classification of the Chinese Trademark Office (the “CTMO”). In today’s post, we would like to introduce a typical case.

READ MORE

Why VICTORIA’S SECRET could not Prevent Selling a Parallel Imported Genuine Product Online in China?

Posted on by
维多利亚的秘密

(By You Yunting) VICTORIA’S SECRET is the largest American retailer of lingerie whose products does not sell on the Internet in China. Considering the fact that a Shanghai-based company sold its products on the Internet in China and confessed that it was the unique designated general distributor in China, VICTORIA’S SECRET brought the Shanghai-based company to the court on the grounds of trademark infringement and unfair competition.

Introduction to the Case:

Plaintiff: VICTORIA”S SECRET STORES BRAND MANAGEMENT, INC．(the “VICTORIA’S SECRET”)

READ MORE

Why the “NEXT” Trademark could Receive Cross-class Protection in China?

Posted on by
next trademark

(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: Generally, two goods that fall into the same similar group constitute similar goods. “Similar goods” refers to the goods that are identical in such respects as the function, purpose, industry, sales channel and consumers; or goods that are likely to lead the relevant public into thinking they are associated with each other and cause confusion.

Trademark registration in China applies the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks (the “Nice Classification”). Every year the State Trademark Office in China will update the Chinese Goods and Services Classification in accordance with the Nice Classification. A trademark shall be registered in accordance with the Chinese Goods and Services Classification. When a trademark dispute brought to a court, the Chinese Goods and Services Classification is not used only as a reference for judgment of similar goods or services.

READ MORE

Could an Additional Proof be Admitted in the TRAB’s Trademark Review?

Posted on by
手持椰子

(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: The general principle of copyright authorship centers on the signature in the work pursuant to the Copyright Law. The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board shall determine the proof that provided by the administrative counterparty with strict and cautious attitude and consider the changes together with the combination of legal facts and objective conditions so as to make a ruling that protects the right holders’ legitimate rights and interests.

The people’s court shall have the right to revoke the ruling made by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (the “TRAB”) and order the TRAB to remake a ruling. For how the TRAB deal with the additional evidences provided by the administrative counterparty during the period of re-ruling, there are no clear laws and regulations. In today’s post, we would like to introduce a typical case with readers.

READ MORE

Could Audi Succeed in Applying for “SQ2”, “SQ4” and “Q9” Trademarks in Mainland China?

Posted on by
audi

(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: A subsequently applied trademark must not be identical with or similar to a prior trademark. The trademark submitted for registration must have sufficient characteristics that allow it to be distinguishable. A few days ago, foreign media outlets reported that Audi had filed several trademarks application for model names, including SQ2, SQ4 and Q9. This is a sign that these vehicles will likely be sold in China in the future.

According to our research, further information about those trademarks is not yet available in Mainland China. This is likely either because Audi has not started the application procedures, or because the Trademark Office has not yet input Audi’s application information online. However, this does not affect our analysis on the outlook of those trademarks in mainland China.

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