Does the “GAP Underwear” Trademark Have Adverse Effect by Its Name?  

(By Luo Yanjie) Trademark Office (the “CTMO”) has been increasingly tightened its standards on trademark reviewing and claiming that the trademark itself may cause “adverse effect”. Competent authorities are more than inclined to use such grounds indiscriminately by treating it as an all-purpose shield to deal with distinct situations. Recently, the Supreme People’s Court remedied such phenomenon by making its decision on the GAP Underwear’s cases. The following is our detailed introduction:


GAP Defeated a Trademark Squatting in China After 20 Years


(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”)