Litigation Archives - Page 3 of 13 - Bridge IP Law Commentary

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.

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.

Legal Basis for Chrysler Group’s Anti-dilution Protection on Its Well-known “JEEP” Trademark in China

Posted on December 18, 2013 by yytbest

(By Luo Yanjie) Today we would like to introduce a typical case regarding Chrysler Group’s countering a subsequent “free-rider” who attempted to register “JEEP” trademark under Class 2 for oil paint through the anti-dilution legal protection on well-known trademarks.

Introduction to the Case:

Plaintiff: Chrysler Group LLC (the “Chrysler”)

Defendant: Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (the “Trademark Office”) and Guangdong-based Dongguan Xiehe Chemical Co., Ltd (the “Xiehe Chemical”)

When a Preceding User of a Trademark Counters a Subsequent Registrant in China?

Posted on December 17, 2013 by yytbest

(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: China’s new Trademark Law still enforces the principle of “first to file,” but at the same time a prior user of a trademark only need prove to some extent that their prior use of a registered trademark had a degree of popularity, and need not prove that a subsequent user of the trademark “squatted” the trademark by registering it. If the board approves such prior use, the prior user will have the right to continue using the trademark in the original scope of use. “Improper means” as stated in Article 31 of the Trademark Law, refers to situations “where the applicant knows or should have known that the trademark had been used by others with a certain degree of influence, and preemptively registered the same, then such applicant shall be determined to have used improper means to register the mark.”

Why BURBERRY’s Classic Pattern Registered Trademark was Revoked in China？

Posted on December 4, 2013 by yytbest

(By You Yunting) Earlier in November, China’s Trademark Office announced canceling Burberry’s trademark of the “Haymarket Check” in China, known as iconic tan, black and red tartan (the “disputed trademark”), under Class 18 for packaging and bags because Burberry had not even used the registered trademark for over three years in China by the media.

A Chinese bag and apparel maker Polo Santa Roberta, who had disputes with Burberry for many years, filed an application with the China’s Trademark Office for revoking the disputed trademark that Burberry had not used for over three years. The State Trademark Office decided to revoke Burberry’s trademark due to inadequate evidence from Burberry after consideration, but Burberry applied for review with the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, triggering heated debates in China.

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.

Why Shanghai Court Enforces Trademark’s Diligence Obligation on Original Equipment Manufacture?

Posted on November 21, 2013 by yytbest

(By You Yunting) Original Equipment Manufacture (the“OEM”) refers to a commercial model where the Principal person is responsible for the brand, research and design, and marketing, meanwhile, the manufacturer is responsible for production. As a big manufacturing country, OEM is an important way for our manufactured products to participate in international competition. Under China’s Laws, however, it is unclear whether OEM constitutes as a trademark infringement, and local courts have handed out different decisions for this problem. According to the author’s information, Fujian higher court, Zhejiang higher court and Shanghai higher court held that OEM manufacturers does not involve trademark infringement, but Guangdong higher court decided that the OEM manufacturers shall take responsibility for trademark infringement in many cases. The Supreme Court has not yet expressed its opinion towards this problem.

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.

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.

Bridge IP Law Commentary

Your Guide to China IP Law！

Category Archives: Litigation