Trademark Archives - Page 5 of 20 - Bridge IP Law Commentary

GAP Defeated a Trademark Squatting in China After 20 Years

Posted on February 10, 2014 by yytbest

(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”)

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

Posted on February 7, 2014 by yytbest

(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.

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

Posted on February 5, 2014 by yytbest

(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.

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

Posted on February 3, 2014 by yytbest

(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.

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

Posted on January 30, 2014 by yytbest

(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.

Shall Silk Street Undertake Compensation Liability to LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER for Trademark Infringement?

Posted on January 28, 2014 by yytbest

(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: Market-managers should fulfill their duty to exercise reasonable care to cease trademark infringement. “Intentionally facilitating an infringement by another person or party of an exclusive right to use a registered trademark including through acts such as storage, transportation, postage, concealment and similar” shall be deemed as an infringement of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark.

Our website once introduced a post that the Name on the American Notorious List Could Also be the Well-known Trademark in China. Actually, Silk Street is not a company that sells fake goods, buta market consisting of many small shops. It is undeniable that the market of Silk Street was once listed alongside the Pirate Bay in the notorious market by USTR because it has sold too many fake products. Considering there are many fake products in Silk Street, the market manager shall be found liable. In today’s post, we would like to introduce and discuss a case where the market manager was found liable for its shops’ selling fake goods.

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

Posted on January 24, 2014 by yytbest

(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”)

How Many Internet Products and Services are Added by the CTMO into Trademark Protection?

Posted on January 23, 2014 by yytbest

(By You Yunting) Abstract: The Chinese Trademark Office (the “CTMO”) strengthens the protection to the Internet products and services in adding the service items, including cloud computing, tablet computer, electronic reader, social-networking site and online bank, into the Chinese Goods and Services Classification. Protection category of Apps that applied to mobile network is, however, still not clear.

Trademark registration in China shall apply to 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 CTMO will make a new amendment to the Chinese Goods and Services Classification and in 2014 the CTMO revised the tenth edition of the Chinese Goods and Services Classification.

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

Posted on January 22, 2014 by yytbest

(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.

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

Posted on January 16, 2014 by yytbest

(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.

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

Posted on January 8, 2014 by yytbest

(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.

Why Only an Interested Party may File an Opposition to a Trademark Application in China

Posted on January 3, 2014 by yytbest

(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: The new Trademark Law stipulates that only the interested party may file an opposition to a trademark application based on relevant grounds. Previous opposition proceedings were so complicated that the new Trademark Law removes the trademark opposition review proceedings completely, with the exception of the review period of twelve months.

Our Trademark Law has been revised many times since its inception in 1982. In August 2013, the National People’s Congress approved the latest revised Trademark Law. In today’s post, we will analyze and compare the two Trademark Laws from the standpoint of the revised opposition system.

Abuse of Internet keywords in Competitive Bidding may Constitute Trademark Infringement

Posted on January 2, 2014 by yytbest

(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: Using another’s trademark as a promotion keyword in Baidu’s competitive bidding may constitute trademark infringement and unfair competition. The contents of “sale promotion (for others)” refer to providing advice, planning, promotion and consulting for others to sell goods or services, and does not include, in particular, enterprises whose main function is to sell goods, namely, activities of commercial enterprise.

With the widespread use of Pay Per Click (the “PPC”) promotion, related legal problems also surface. In recent years, there are many trademark infringements regarding the bidding service of keyword PPC. The case in today’s post is a typical one considering the bidding service of keyword PPC as follows.

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

Posted on December 30, 2013 by yytbest

(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.

Should An Enterprise Change its Enterprise Name that Infringed a Registered Trademark in China?

Posted on December 24, 2013 by yytbest

(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: Marks that only bear the generic names, devices, or model numbers of the goods shall not be registered as trademarks. This restriction was just limited the generic names of the same goods. Trademark right is a unified national right all over the China and shall be under equal protection. In practice, for an act of an enterprise name infringing a registered trademark, the court may make a comprehensive judgment of different kinds of infringement liabilities.

With regard to some well-known brands, an act of using another’s well-known brand as an enterprise name is a typical infringement manner, which annoys the right holder. In today’s post, we’d like to introduce and share a typical case that the infringing party was finally convicted of infringement by the courts and ordered to stop using its enterprise name for the following.

Bridge IP Law Commentary

Your Guide to China IP Law！

Category Archives: Trademark