Registration Archives - Page 2 of 9 - Bridge IP Law Commentary

Alert: SoundCloud, Ubuntu and Lots of Famous Brands are being Rush-Registered as Trademarks in China ！

Posted on April 25, 2014 by yytbest

(By You Yunting) Recently, a news article sparked concern that the Qihu Investment Co., Ltd (a similar Chinese name to Qihoo 360 Technology Co., Ltd) had rushed-registered hundreds of trademarks belonging to internet venture companies. Even though Qihoo 360 Technology Co., Ltd later clarified that it had nothing with the Qihu Investment Co., Ltd, the news still attracted attention from both companies and lawyers.

Many famous companies’ brands, such as Ubuntu, Hotel Tonight and SoundCloud were being rush-registered as trademarks and some have even entered into the process of announcement by the Chinese Trademark Office after a preliminary examination and within three months of the date of the publication. The overseas companies may lose the exclusive right of trademark in China unless they file an opposition against these rush-registrations. Worse, they will not be able to use these brands they have created when entering the Chinese market for a significant length of time. In today’s post, we would like to address how venture companies should resolve trademark squatting.

Court Decision Made Compensation to a Foreign Buyer against Products Infringement of the Manufacturer in China

Posted on April 18, 2014 by yytbest

(By Luo Yanjie) In our today’s post, when a foreign company ordered a number of Hero pens from a Chinese company, the Chinese company used the fake products to replace the authentic ones and then the fake products were found to be confiscated and punished by the Customs. Finally, the foreign company brought the Chinese company into the court and won the lawsuit, claiming that the Chinese company disobeyed the contract.

Hero pens are famous and have received well reputation for its good quality in the industry of pens in China.

Beijing Court Rejected HUGO BOSS‘s Opposition against “H30SS” Trademark

Posted on March 27, 2014 by yytbest

(By Luo Yanjie) China is facing a worsening situation with regards to serious trademark squatting. With more and more registrars rushing to register possible trademarks that once were used by famous enterprises, there is little help for enterprises holding such famous trademarks. For example, a registrar has just succeeded in the grant of a trademark, similar with what HUGO BOSS AG had, under the class for cosmetics and fragrances. Today we will introduce this case as follows.

Introduction to the Case:

Unilever Defeats Squatting of POND’S Trademark in China

Posted on March 13, 2014 by yytbest

(By Luo Yanjie) Today we will introduce a typical example of a trademark squatting case. Unilever recently succeeded in defeating trademark squatting after it undertook a nine year objection to prevent a similar trademark from being registered under a different class.

Case introduction:

On May 28, 2003, Mr. Shi filed a personal application for “POND’S/ 旁氏” (the “disputed trademark”) under Class 5 for tonics (medicine), baby milk powder, air fresher, sanitary napkins and dental lacquer. However, in the period of trademark opposition for primary publication, Unilever filed an opposition, alleging that its prior registered “旁氏/POND’S” trademark (the “reference trademark”) had become a well-known trademark in China. Unable to achieve a supporting judgment from the Trademark Office and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (the “TRAB”), Unilever brought the case to the court.

China Court Decision Repeals TRAB’s Ruling for Unified Review Standard

Posted on February 27, 2014 by yytbest

(By Luo Yanjie)Abstract: Pursuant to Chinese Trademark Law, those applications having unhealthy influences shall not be used as trademarks. “Unhealthy influences” refers to a negative, or inactive influence that may detrimental to the interests and social order of the public, including political, economic, cultural, religious and ethnic allusions which are a registered trademark itself or a mark that is applied to goods or services. However, the Chinese Trademark Office should have a consistent attitude regarding the trademark adjudication standard for these unhealthy influences.

Lessons to Be Learned from Apple Losing Their Apple Trademark for a Game Console in China

Posted on February 26, 2014 by yytbest

(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.

Why Court Decision Exempts Wal-Mart From liabilities of Trademark Infringement?

Posted on February 17, 2014 by yytbest

(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: In the event that a party unknowingly sells goods that infringe upon another party’s exclusive right to use a registered trademark but can prove that it has obtained the goods lawfully and is able to identify the supplier shall not be held liable for damages. In a case that a trademark holder separately sues sellers, despite no laws requesting the manufacturers to join in the lawsuit, for the purpose of preventing contradictory judgment, the courts could notify him or her requesting joinder. It is the manufacturers that could decide whether acting as a third party to join the lawsuit.

Why China’s Courts Held an Ambiguous Attitude to the Rush Registration of Another’s Works as a Trademark?

Posted on November 25, 2013 by yytbest

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.

Can Carnival Films Retake the Downton Abbey Trademark Squatted in China?

Posted on November 7, 2013 by yytbest

(By Luo Yanjie) According to a recent report by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), the British television series Downton Abbey (In Chinese, translated as “唐顿庄园 Tangdun Zhuangyuan”), which is very popular in China, and Carnival Films, who produced Downton Abbey, was attempting to sell Downton (in Chinese, Downtown is translated as “唐顿 Tangdun”) branded wine in the North American, European and Australian markets. However, according to a disclosure by the State Trademark Office, some Chinese merchants drew first blood, registering the “唐顿庄园 Tangdun Zhuangyuan” trademark and subsequently obtaining rights in the trademark. This news also pointed out that a Shandong-based Merchant Li Xiangjun had already received ownership of the “唐顿庄园 Tangdun Zhuangyuan” trademark for wines in China.

How did Lenovo Utilize Its Well-known Trademark to Defense against a “Free-Rider”?

Posted on November 5, 2013 by yytbest

(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: In today’s post, we will introduce a typical case discussing Lenovo’s defense against a “free rider” utilizing its well-known trademark. In this case, when Lenovo claimed cross-class protection for its Lenovo trademark, the court established two rules in its decision, which are as follows:

First, “misleading the public and causing injury to the interests of the registrant of a well-known trademark” is a legal basis for whether or not a well-known trademark may receive cross-class protection.

Why the Calligraphic Character’s Copyright Failed to Defeat Trademark Right?

Posted on October 31, 2013 by yytbest

Abstract: To determine whether a prior copyright could defend itself against a later trademark right, whether the foundation of copyright exists should be the first enquiry. That is to say, it is worthy of discussion whether an author receives copyright for a single calligraphic character in calligraphic works.

Pursuant to China’s laws and regulations, prior ownership of copyright in a work is a defense against a later trademark right. In determining whether a prior copyright can defend itself against a later trademark right, however, the first matter to be decided is whether the foundation of copyright exists. That is, whether the author obtains copyright for a single calligraphic character in calligraphic works. In today’s post, we will introduce and discuss a typical case as follows:

Why did the Trademark Office Reject Audi’s “A4” Trademark Application?

Posted on October 30, 2013 by yytbest

(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.

Introduction to the 2013 Trademark Law, Part 2

Posted on October 12, 2013 by yytbest

(By Zhan Yi) On August 30, 2013, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress promulgated Decisions of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress Concerning Alterations to the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China, which shall be implemented on May 1, 2014. Our website previously translated the Full text of 2013 China Trademark Law, we provided a Comparison Version highlighting the differences between the 2001 and 2013 Trademark Law. In today’s post, our website will introduce and discuss the revised content within the 2013 Trademark Law. Without further ado, we will now move on to the second part of our examination of the 2013 Trademark Law.

Introduction to the 2013 China Trademark Law, Part I

Posted on October 10, 2013 by yytbest

(By Zhan Yi) On August 30, 2013, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress promulgated the Decisions of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress Concerning Alterations to the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China, which shall be implemented on May 1, 2014. Our website has already translated the Full text of 2013 China Trademark Law in a previous post, and compiled and provided a comparative version highlighting the differences between the 2001 Trademark Law and 2013 Trademark Law. Starting with today’s post, we will introduce and discuss the most important revisions and changes found in the 2013 Trademark Law. In today’s post, we will introduce the first part.

Why did the Court not Approve the Trademark Coexistence Agreement?

Posted on October 2, 2013 by yytbest

（By Luo Yanjie）Abstract: Current laws have no provisions as to whether a trademark coexistence agreement made by and between the trademark holder with a prior trademark and the trademark applicant with a latter trademark could impact the validity of the latter trademark. Under such circumstances, the courts shall consider and decide whether to approve the above-mentioned agreement. Where litigation concerning trademark ownership affirmation takes the form of an administrative suit, the courts shall, within the scope of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board’s (the “TRAB”) administrative acts, decide whether its administrative acts are valid and rational.

Bridge IP Law Commentary

Your Guide to China IP Law！

Category Archives: Registration