Tag Archives: trademark application

How did Lenovo Utilize Its Well-known Trademark to Defense against a “Free-Rider”?

Posted on by
图片1

(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.

READ MORE

Why did the Trademark Office Reject Audi’s “A4” Trademark Application?

Posted on by

(By Luo Yanjie) The Audi A4, A6 and other series of Audi cars are popular classic cars in China. However, Audi’s trademark applications for the A4, A6 etc., are always rejected. In today’s post, we will introduce a typical case regarding these trademarks, followed by our analysis for our readers.

Introduction to the Case:

In January 2007, Audi China filed an application with the State Trademark Office to register its “A4” mark (the “disputed trademark”). The State Trademark Office upheld that “A4”, a common vehicle model, lacked distinctiveness. Based on this finding, the Trademark Office rejected Audi’s application. After Audi applied for a trademark reexamination with the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (the “TRAB”), the TRAB held that, the disputed trademark comprised of the English Letter “A” and Arabic numeral “4” was so simple that it would be difficult to distinguish the function of the source of goods; in addition, it lacked distinctiveness, a requirement pursuant to the Trademark Law. Again, based on these findings, the TRAB rejected Audi’s application for reexamination.

READ MORE

Why did the Court not Approve the Trademark Coexistence Agreement?

Posted on by
图片1

（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.

READ MORE

Why could China’s Courts Decide for Audi’s “TT” to Apply for a Trademark?

TM截图未命名

(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: as for whether trademarks are similar, many times, it is decided on the subjective cognition of the judge. Furthermore, considering the fact of the distinctiveness of a trademark, whether the “TT” trademark has distinctiveness is still in doubt.

Automobile models are always composed of simple numbers and English letters. Sometimes manufacturers of bestselling cars once hoped to register these simple models as trademarks but all failed (for example, A6, A4, etc.). However, Audi canceled the rules handled down by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board through administrative litigation processing, thus possibly obtaining trademark registration:

READ MORE

Infringing Goods shall not be Determined as Well-Known Goods

图片1

Abstract: Under the circumstances of prior trademark rights on the same goods, determining similar trade name used by another person as the special name belonging to a well-known commodity shall be limited. Furthermore, the courts shall necessarily review the ownership of prior trademark as the fact of a case.

(By Luo Yanjie) The special name belonging to a well-known commodity is a protective approach for an unregistered trademark. In particular, the special name shall have no severability itself; otherwise, it shall be limited. In today’s post, we will introduce a case with this element with the following analysis:

READ MORE

An Unregistered Trademark can be Licensed to Another Party for a Fee

Posted on by
图片1

Abstract: An unregistered trademark may lawfully be licensed to another person. If any third party had registered the trademark, the licensor’s actions will constitute a breach of license contract. Except where the licensor has committed obvious fraud, the validity and effectiveness of such a license contract upon unregistered trademarks cannot be denied.

(By Luo Yanjie) Generally, a trademark in a trademark license should be registered before it is licensed to any other party. However, in today’s post, we will discuss a particular case there the trademark licensed was unregistered at the time the license was concluded. After being heard by two courts and the Supreme Court, such a trademark license contract was ruled to be valid. The following is our analysis.

READ MORE

Can Prior Rights in a Business Name Counterfeit With a Subsequent Trademark Right?

Posted on by

Abstract: trademark holder is not necessarily entitled to prevent others from using its trademark into a business name because operation method needs to be judged. On the contrary, consideration upon prior right of business name does not just depend on first registration but on operation methods.

(By Luo Yanjie)Using another’s registered trademark as a business name is a common phenomenon of copycat brand names in China. In today’s post we would like to introduce a typical case to you. Relying on the fact that the business name “凯伦 Kanren” was registered earlier than that of the trademark, the court determined the defendant did not infringe upon the exclusive rights in the trademark. In the author’s opinion, the ratio decidendi is worth further discussion:

READ MORE

“Passive use” is not equivalent to “Prior use” under Article 31 of the Trademark law

Posted on by

(By Luo Yanjie) Pursuant to Article 31 of the Trademark Law: anyone applying for trademark registration may not damage the existing rights of others obtained by priority, neither may it register, in advance, a trademark that has been used by others and has become influential. In practice, consumers apply a “name” to a product, which can then be considered a kind of “trademark” for the product itself. Is such passive use attributable to prior use? In regard to this legal issue, there are no actual legal provisions speaking to it in Mainland China. However, the answer in today’s post appears to be a resounding no.

READ MORE

Can A Subsequently Applied Trademark be Registered if the Owner of A Previously Registered Similar Trademark Does Not Oppose?

Posted on by

Abstract: Approval from a reference trademark holder in supporting the registration of a subsequently registered similar trademark is one of the key elements taken into consideration by administrative organs and the People’s Court in deciding whether to grant trademark rights to the latter, based primarily on Article 28 of the Trademark Law.

(By Luo Yanjie) China’s Trademark Law adopts the “first to file” principle, and in general, when a later applied-for trademark appears to be substantially similar to a previously registered trademark, it will not be granted exclusive rights in the use of the mark. In the case introduced in this post, the latter applicant succeeded in its trademark application due to approval by a previously registered holder of a similar trademark. The details of the case are as follows:

READ MORE

Why Trademark “K” Failed in Its Application?

Posted on by

Abstract:

(By Luo Yanjie) China trademark application procedure follows the principle of “first application,” but when two trademarks are substantially similar, a subsequent  trademark could be considered as distinctive as the previously registered one through a sound reputation among consumers; taking this into account, and the possibility that such reputation may well differentiate a subsequent trademark substantially similar to a previously registered one causes one to consider whether such reputation would be worthy of the granting of trademark rights and protection.

READ MORE

Is It Illegal For Directors in Company to Squat Trademarks in China?

Posted on by

(By Luo Yanjie) As regulated in Article 15 of the Trademark Law:

“Where any agent or representative registers, in its or his own name, the trademark of a person for whom it or he acts as the agent or representative without authorization there from, and the latter raises opposition, the trademark shall be rejected for registration and prohibited from use.”

But in judicial practice, the agent or representative has a very vague definition of “authorized” . Our website once analysed the issues concerned in the post “Whether Sales Agents Are Included in the Trademark Agent Squatting Articles of China Trademark Law”. In today’s post, we would like to introduce the opinions of the court from a different aspect. The details are as follows:

READ MORE

Does a Previously Registered Noted Trademark Influence Subsequently Registered Similar Trademarks?

Posted on by

Abstract

(By Luo Yanjie) In determining the similarity of two trademarks, one must take into account the common understanding among the public as to the trademark and the goods it presents (as well as the source), and the public’s comprehension of the words, pictures, designs, or a combination of all of the above. Concurrently, however, the reputation of the trademark must be taken into consideration in order to determine whether the above factors would lead to confusion as to source among the relevant consumers and market. Generally, trademarks are judged by their similarity with the appearance of another trademark; however, in the following described case, the second instance court also considered the reputation of the reference trademark and the understanding of the consumer in relation to a more comprehensive protection of a well-known brand. The significance of the case is primarily that, due to the millions of trademark applications made in China each year, even subsequently registered trademarks that are incredibly similar to those previously registered may be approved for commercial use by the China Trademark Office, due to strained and restricted resources on its part. In any case, the trademark involved in this case is a well-known one, and for this reason, the court decided that the subsequently registered mark would not be approved for use.

READ MORE

Could Apple Get Trademark “iWatch” in the Mainland China?

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) The author would first like to apologyze, that as mentioned in the previous post “Why Did Apple Filed the First “iWatch” Trademark In Jamaica?”:

“For the prospect of iWatch application in mainland China… the author would like to stop here, and I will resume the discussion over this issue in tomorrow’s post.”

Yet due to work obligations, the author broke his promise. For the make-up, the author took an early raise this morning to continue his analysis on the issue.  First, the author’s conclusion of the issue is: despite the obstacles of iWatch acquisition, it would not prevent Apple from gaining it.

READ MORE

Why Did Apple Filed the First “iWatch” Trademark In Jamaica?

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) According to media reports, Apple Inc. (“Apple”) has filed for “iWatch” trademark in several countries and regions, including: Japan, Mexico, Russia and Taiwan. Searching the trademark database in mainland China and Taiwan, the author discovered that Apple filed its iWatch trademark in Taiwan in June 2013.As for the trademark application in mainland China, because it takes a longer period of time for trademark application to be recorded on China Trademark Office’s website, we could only check the information concerning applications made several months ago. Therefore, if Apple filed the application in early June, then we would have no way to confirm it right now. Furthermore, we have found no records regarding Apple’s iWatch trademark application in China. The following are information of Apple’s “iWatch” trademark application in Taiwan:

READ MORE

Why Did the Supreme People’s Court Changed Its Attitude towards Revoking Trademarks When It Is Unused for 3 Years

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) China is a heavily administrated and controlled country. If administrative approval is not obtained, business activity such as producing and selling of Alcoholic beverages, medicine, etc.,  could be ruled to be invalid by the court. According to the Trademark Law of China, once the trademark has not been used for three continuous years, it could be eliminated. There is a significant amount of people who uses their right to their trademark however, many people fail to obtain the proper administrative approval or violates administrative rules. This brings us to the issue of  whether or not such a trademark should be removed even though it has been used. For this kind of cases, we find an example in the 10 annual cases of 2011 promulgated by the Supreme People’s Court of China. In that case, the Supreme Court overturned its opinions expressed in the previous year, “Kangwang Trademark Dispute”, in which the court determined that despite a shortage of administrative approval, the using of the trademark is sufficient according to the Trademark Law. 

READ MORE