Settlement Archives - Page 2 of 10 - Bridge IP Law Commentary

P&G vs. Vidal Sassoon Hairs School’s Judgment Abstract

Posted on June 4, 2014 by yytbest

(By Luo Yanjie) An enterprise name attempting to use a well-known trademark is quite the norm in China. In today’s post, we would like to introduce a typical case where the courts made a final judgment that the infringer constitutes infringement but does not change its enterprise name. However, the judgment is far from playing its role in the containment of this violation.

Introduction to the Case:

Appellant (Defendant at the first instance): Beijing Royal VIDAL SASSOON Beauty Hair School (the “Royal School”)

China Court Affirmed the Exception for Registration of Geographical Name Trademark

Posted on May 30, 2014 by yytbest

(By Luo Yanjie) According to the Trademark Law, the geographical names of administrative divisions at or above the county level, and foreign geographical names well-known to the public shall not be used as trademarks, except for geographical names that have other meanings or are not geographically-oriented. However, under certain circumstances, geographical trademarks shall, if they are of sufficient distinctiveness as a whole, may be considered to have the requisite requirements of distinctiveness. In today’s post, we will introduce such a typical case for our readers.

Could A Prior User Constitute Trademark Infringement against the Exclusive Right Holder of a Registered Trademark?

Posted on May 16, 2014 by yytbest

(By Luo Yanjie) Our former trademark laws had not yet stipulated whether a prior user constituted trademark infringement against the exclusive right holder of a registered trademark. However, the implementation of the update Trademark Law this year solved the problem. In today’s post, we will introduce a typical case concerning the prior user succeeded in competing against the exclusive right holder. Even though the case was judged before the implementation of the update Trademark Law, its judgment was kept pace with legislative purpose of the update Trademark Law.

How Venture Companies Should Deal with Trademark Squatting?

Posted on April 18, 2014 by yytbest

(By You Yunting) Recently, a news article sparked concern that the Qihu Investment Company (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 Company, the news still attracted attention from both venture companies and lawyers. In today’s post, we would like to address how venture companies should resolve trademark squatting.

Does Using a Trademark with Common Meaning Constitute Trademark Infringement in China?

Posted on April 17, 2014 by yytbest

(By Luo Yanjie) According to Chinese legislation, a mark which has a common meaning in normal ways may be registered as a trademark where it has acquired distinctiveness through use and is readily distinguishable. If being registered, the mark with a common meaning would be protected under the Trademark Law. However, in practice, a competitor may use the trademark against the exclusive right holder, with a defense that the trademark has common meaning. Today, we will introduce a successful case where the court is in favor of the exclusive right holder of the trademark.

Competitor Using Recycled Budweiser’s Bottles Constituted Trademark Infringement

Posted on April 3, 2014 by yytbest

(By You Yunting) Our website has previously introduced the case where ABlnbev (China) Sales Co., Ltd filed a lawsuit against its competitor, who was unauthorized to use the bottles with the trademarks “Budweiser” and “ABlnbev”. Recently, the Shanghai Higher People’s Court made a final judgment in favor of ABlnbev (China) Sales Co., Ltd.

Introduction to the Case:

Appellant: (Defendant at the first instance): Xiyingmen Beer Company (the “Company Z”)

Respondent: (Plaintiff at the first instance): ABlnbev (China) Sales Co., Ltd

Uber’s China Imitator Didi Taxi Meets Trademark Problems

Posted on March 5, 2014 by yytbest

(By You Yunting) In China, there are two apps similar with Uber, i,e, Didi Taxi and Kuaidi Taxi. According to news reports, recently, a Hangzhou-based company wondered that Didi Taxi (English-transliterated from Chinese“嘀嘀打车”), a popular taxi booking apps in China, has infringed the exclusive right to its trademark under Class 9. (note: the link is in Chinese). But the operating company of Didi Taxi has no response.

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.

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.

How A.O.SMITH Corporation Protects Its Interests against the Free Rider AOSIMIHE?

Posted on November 20, 2013 by yytbest

(By Luo Yanjie) Trademark infringement via the unauthorized use of an enterprise’s name is a common phenomenon in China. Since the requirements for registering a company in Hong Kong are well known for being comparatively lax, many companies attempt to register well-known trademarks as an enterprise name in Hong Kong, and then run a business in Mainland China using this registered name, effectively fulfilling its role as a “free-rider” of another’s well known trademark.

The A.O.SMITH Corporation was founded over 100 years ago in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA, and is a global leader applying innovative technology and energy-efficient solutions to products marketed worldwide. However, the “American”AOSIMIHE (note: AOSIMIHE is a rough approximation of the name A.O. Smith transliterated into Chinese) Appliances (International) Group Ltd., registered in Hong Kong, is a free rider attempting to imply a connection between it and the United States-based A.O. Smith Corporation. Based on its Hong Kong company and trademark registration, the former succeeded in registering its “AOSIMIHE” trademark in Mainland China. Today, we’ll discuss how A.O.SMITH Corporation protected its legal interests against the “American” AOSIMIHE Appliances (International) Group Ltd.

China Supreme Court Issued A New Typical Trademark Infringement Case of OEM

Posted on November 14, 2013 by yytbest

(By You Yunting) As a big manufacturing country, China deals with a lot of products categorized as original equipment manufacturing (the “OEM”). With regard to whether OEM constitutes trademark infringement, where local courts had handed out different decisions and infringing standards for this problem, the Supreme People’s Court has not yet expressed a clear standard for determining. Recently, China’s Supreme People’s Court has published the 2012 Top 50 typical trademark cases, and, among them, there is a case concerning OEM trademark infringement, where the manufacturer of an OEM won an infringement claim against it by the trademark holder. From the SPC’s decision in this case, we find rather clear evidence of the court’s attitude toward this particular issue.

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.

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: Settlement