Why Zheng Yuanjie Finds it Difficult to Seek Protection of Intellectual Property Rights?

(By You Yunting) Zheng Yuanjie, a famous fairy tale writer announced on his personal social account that he would no longer seek trademark protection or publish any written work. By his own account, he had sought trademark protection for 673 infringed trademarks unsuccessfully. After reading part of the content of his Weibo, I feel he may have some misunderstanding of intellectual property protection principles. Actually, he was given a lot of legal protection, but intellectual property protection is different considering its privity. What he is angry about may be unnecessary.


Why “Gu Ailing” Trademarks Are Declared as Invalid?

(By Wang Haichuan) With Beijing Winter Olympic Games going on well, some people are planning to take advantage of successful athletes to gain enormous profits. On 14 February 2022 China National Intellectual Property Administration made the Announcement of Legally Fighting Malicious Rush Registration of Bing Dundun, Gu Ailing, Etc. Trademarks, arousing wide concerns. According to the announcement, a few businesses and individuals maliciously applied hot words related to the Winter Olympics such as the mascot for 2022 Beijing Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games and athletes’ names, illegally used reputation of the Olympics and the Olympic Committee and infringed others’ names and legal rights in order to gain illegal profits and therefore China National Intellectual Property Administration refused to approve 429 trademark registration applications, including No.41128524 “Bin Dundun” and No.62453532 “Gu Ailing” trademark applications and used its powers to announce the invalidity of 43 registered trademarks, including No.41126916 “Xue Dundun” and No.38770198 “Gu Ailing” trademarks. This article deals with reasons for and issues related to NIPA’s announcement of the invalidity of “Gu Ailing” trademark.


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.