Tag Archives: trademark attorney

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

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

Posted on by

(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 there from, 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 of “authorized” . Our website once analysed the issues concerned in the post “Whether Sales Agents Are Included in the Trademark Agent Squatting Articles of China Trademark Law”. In today’s post, we would like to introduce the opinions of the court from a different aspect. The details are as follows:

READ MORE

Does a Previously Registered Noted Trademark Influence Subsequently Registered Similar Trademarks?

Posted on by

Abstract

(By Luo Yanjie) In determining the similarity of two trademarks, one must take into account the common understanding among the public as to the trademark and the goods it presents (as well as the source), and the public’s comprehension of the words, pictures, designs, or a combination of all of the above. Concurrently, however, the reputation of the trademark must be taken into consideration in order to determine whether the above factors would lead to confusion as to source among the relevant consumers and market. Generally, trademarks are judged by their similarity with the appearance of another trademark; however, in the following described case, the second instance court also considered the reputation of the reference trademark and the understanding of the consumer in relation to a more comprehensive protection of a well-known brand. The significance of the case is primarily that, due to the millions of trademark applications made in China each year, even subsequently registered trademarks that are incredibly similar to those previously registered may be approved for commercial use by the China Trademark Office, due to strained and restricted resources on its part. In any case, the trademark involved in this case is a well-known one, and for this reason, the court decided that the subsequently registered mark would not be approved for use.

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

All General Vocabulary Cannot Be Registered As Trademarks in China?

Posted on by
1101051007434

(By Luo Yanjie) Early in this year, JDB Inc., the famous herbal tea manufacturer argued with Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Company (the “GPC”) regarding ownership of the Wang Lao Ji trademark, which concluded in JDB being ordered to cease its use of the trademark. Now, JDB has begun its second battle with GPC, this time accusing GPC of infringeing the trademark “Ji Qing Shi Fen (吉庆时分).” Wanglaoji Health Industry Co. Ltd. (Guangzhou Wanglaoji Company) affiliated with GPC, recently made a statement that the State Trademark Office had accepted its application to revoke the registration of “Ji Qing Shi Fen (吉庆时分)”, the main reason being that the mark is considered generic in the sense that it is vocabulary in common use. Due to this, the State Trademark Office further advocated that it is uncertain whether there can be any exclusive right in the use of the registered mark.

READ MORE

Could Nike Get the Trademark “Liuxiang”?

Posted on by

(By Luo Yanjie) Recently, the lawsuit filed by Nike against China’s Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (“TRAB”) (note: the link is in Chinese) was heard in the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court. The case was brought because TRAB refused Nike’s application to trademark Liu Xiang (刘翔) for the reason that the trademark had been registered by another company twenty six years ago, namely in July of 1986. At that time, a company named Shanghai Liuxiang Company applied for the trademark Liu Xiang Brand (刘翔牌) in the class of clothing, and the exclusive period for the use of that mark will last until 2017. Incidentally, the Liu Xiang Brand trademark happens to have the same name as the famous Chinese athlete, Liu Xiang. The case is currently being heard, but the author believes Nike has little chance of winning the case. Today’s will examine the issues involved in this case.

READ MORE

Does Chinese Trademark Law Permit the Coexistence of Identical or Similar Trademarks?

Posted on by

Last year, the Supreme People’s Court issued the final decision in the protracted dispute between LACOSTE and CARTELO. The decision clarifies cases involving long brand history and could guide future hearings on similar disputes in courts of all levels. In the decision, LACOSTE lost the lawsuit, and no infringement was found on the part of CARTELO. In the judgment, the Court took the first steps towards establishing a system of “trademark coexistence,” which means the coexistence of similar trademarks in the same class, for use in China’s trademark cases. Today’s post will provide an analysis of the application of this system in China.

READ MORE

What Tencent’s Trademark Strategy Tells Us?

Posted on by

By You Yunting

Today, we would like to introduce how Chinese enterprises protect their brands. Months ago, the news reporting Tencent (SEHK: 700)’s QQ trademark registration in all classes, including condom, is heatedly spread among Chinese netizens. From the report, we saw the local IT giant registered more than 1, 000 trademarks in the classes to protect its well-known mark “QQ” avoiding the free-riding by others, among which the class of food, matchmaking and condom is listed. Unlike the author who criticized Tencent a muddled thinking, we prefer the applications as the company’s thoughtful and overall strategy on trademark protection. Now, here’re our conclusion on Tencent’s experience and the analysis:

READ MORE

How Could McDonald’s Beat Free Rider of Trademark in China?

Highlights:This article introduces the case initiated by McDonald’s to protect its trademark right against malicious imitation and the related laws and regulations in China, also the legal suggestions from Bridge IP Commentary to McDonald’s in the case that to protect its right basing on the general vocabulary defined in the Trademark Law and the copyright of its trademark.


Recently, the McDonald’s (NYSE: MCD) administrative litigation against the imitation of its trademark by a Beijing company attracts the media’sattention. Several years ago, the trademark “wonderful and its graph” (hereinafter referred to trademark “W”)was registered by  the company in the State Administration of Industry and Commerce, and the registered ranges include restaurant, café, research and development, clothing design and so on. On finding the trade mark and the judgment of similarity with its “M”, McDonald’s then filed an opposition against the trademark to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board(hereinafter referred to the Trademark Board) under the State Administration of Industry and Commerce for re-examination. The Trademark Board finally decides to cancel the registration of the trademark “W” in the field of restaurant, café, cocktail party service, hotel, bar, teahouse service, however, while to maintain the registration in clothing design and package design. Therefore, MacDonald filed an administrative litigation to the Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court to cancel the decision of the Trademark Board.

READ MORE