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

(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.


Why Couldn’t the Trademark “Bond” Be Applied to Contraceptives?

(By Albert Chen) The Beijing High People’s Court (the “Beijing High Court”) established the “merchandising right” in a 2011 judgment on an administrative dispute between the Trademark Adjudication and Review Board (the “Board”) and DANJAQ, LLC (the “DANJAQ”). That was the first judicial definition of the right, and the first time it was included as a protected “prior right.”

In today’s post, we would like to describe the facts in the case, and introduce to our readers the opinions of Beijing High Court and our comments on the matter.


McDonald’s Lost the First Instance of the Trademark Administrative Lawsuit against Wonderful

We once reported the administrative refusal on Mcdonald’s opposition on Wonderful’s trademark (the W trademark) which is similar to Mcdonald’s “M” trademark (you may check the details in How Could McDonald’s Beat Free Rider of Trademark in China?). After that, Mcdonald’s initiated the administrative lawsuit on the refusal.

According to Beijing Morning Post’s report on 10th December, Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court judged on the first instance of the administrative lawsuit, refusing the claims of Mcdonald’s.


How Could McDonald’s Beat Free Rider of Trademark in China?

Highlights:This article introduces the case initiated by McDonald’s to protect its trademark right against malicious imitation and the related laws and regulations in China, also the legal suggestions from Bridge IP Commentary to McDonald’s in the case that to protect its right basing on the general vocabulary defined in the Trademark Law and the copyright of its trademark.

Recently, the McDonald’s (NYSE: MCD) administrative litigation against the imitation of its trademark by a Beijing company attracts the media’sattention. Several years ago, the trademark “wonderful and its graph” (hereinafter referred to trademark “W”)was registered by  the company in the State Administration of Industry and Commerce, and the registered ranges include restaurant, café, research and development, clothing design and so on. On finding the trade mark and the judgment of similarity with its “M”, McDonald’s then filed an opposition against the trademark to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board(hereinafter referred to the Trademark Board) under the State Administration of Industry and Commerce for re-examination. The Trademark Board finally decides to cancel the registration of the trademark “W” in the field of restaurant, café, cocktail party service, hotel, bar, teahouse service, however, while to maintain the registration in clothing design and package design. Therefore, MacDonald filed an administrative litigation to the Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court to cancel the decision of the Trademark Board.