Tag Archives: Trademark Review and Adjudication Board

Comments on the Trademark Squatting of HERMES

Posted on by

Another Lesson from the Negligence of Trademark Localization

It’s reported (note: the link is in Chinese) that the well-known luxury brand HERMES INTERNATIONAL has registered its international trademark of HERMES in China as early as in 1985, while its official Chinese name 爱马仕 is unregistered. While, on the other hand, Dafeng Garment (the “Dafeng”), a clothing company admitted in Foshan City of Guangdong Province registered the Chinese trademark of爱马仕 in September of 1995, though it was disputed later in 1997 and 2001, Dafeng still owns the right of the trademark. In 2009, HERMES INTERNATIONAL registered爱马仕 in the class of tie manufacture, which was refused by the trademark office and remained rejected by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (the “Board”) after the review procedure. After that HERMES INTERNATIONAL filed the lawsuit against the Board, but finally the court supported the decision made by the Board.

READ MORE

State Intellectual Property Office Actually Only Be in Charge of Patent Matters in China

The Introduction to the IPR Administrations in China

We find that it remains unclear to most foreign friends that the division among the administrations managing IPR in China. Actually, it also puzzles local people for it’s hardly to judge the specific function of the administration from its name, for example, the State Intellectual Property Office is in charge of patent management, the industry and commerce administration for trademark, and the Copy Right Office, the managing organ for copyright, is also known as the administration of press and publication. (the image above is the logo of the administrations mentioned in this post)

READ MORE

Apple Lost the Trademark Opposition against Red Apple Trademark after the Proceeding for 10 Years

According to the report of hc360.com (the news is in Chinese), Beijing High People’s Court adjudicated the final judgment on the trademark opposition filed by Apple Inc (Apple) against Zhejiang Red Apple Electronic Co., Ltd. (Zhejiang Red Apple) on 28th November, 2011, Ltd, rejecting Apple’s opposition on the defendant’s registered trademark in class 9 of CCTV monitor. Till then the proceeding of the case for 10 years is finally ended up.

Early in November of 2002, Zhejiang Red Apple’s application of red apple trademark was approved by China Trademark Office, and afterwards opposed by Apple, who demanded no approval for the mark, for the similarity between the red apple image and the first applied Apple trademark. Despite the opposition, the trademark office approved the application and issued the “Image Trademark Opposition Ajudication”, (2007) Trademark Yi Zi No. 3887 on 27th August, 2007.

READ MORE

The Interpretation on the Ceased Use for Three Consecutive Years in China Trademark Law

It’s regulated in China Trademark Law that when the registered trademark is ceased for use for three consecutive years, the trademark office shall order him to rectify the situation within a specified period or even cancel the registered trademark. And the understanding on the ceased use is the most consulted question to us. In fact, such article was once referred in the administrative adjudication made by the Supreme People’s Court of China, and that may help us in understanding the article.

READ MORE

China Trademark Application Examination Period Decreased to 10 Months

As reported by Xinhua.com, it was released on the China Industry and Commerce Administration Conference on 26th, December, 2011 that the trademark examination period is further shortened to the current 10 months calculating from the documents submitting to the examination due, and on the other hand, the trademark opposition and dispute hearing could be finished within 18 months, which has reached the level of U.S.A and Japan.

For the rapid development in the economy, the trademark application in China surpassed the annual examinable amount around 2000, which then led to the overstock. And the examination period was prolonged to more than 3 years by the end of 2007. On that account, the administration took series measures to promote the process, and consequently, the examination period was reduced to less than 1 year by the end of 2010.

READ MORE

Coca Cola Gets the Preliminary Win in the Case of “Qoo” against “Ku Wawa” in China

It was reported by  the Beijing News and Legal Evening Paper that the Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court (“Court”) has sentenced the case Coca Cola charging the infringement of the trademark “Ku Wawa” registered in the against Coca Cola’s copyright of designed trademark “Qoo”, judging that the Trademark Review and Adjudication shall rescind its approval for trademark registration of “Ku Wawa” and make a new decision.

The Court held that the trademark “Ku Wawa” bore no material similarity with  the trademark “Qoo”, which however was registered by Coca Cola in 2001, and for this reason “Ku Wawa” shall not infringe the copyright of “Qoo”. On the other hand, although the registered products of beer of “Ku Wawa” is different from the beverage of “Qoo”, they actually relate in consumers and marketing approaches. Accordingly, the Court decided the trademark “Ku Wawa” constitutes a similar trademark used in the similar products, which could be trademark infringement, and demanded the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board cancel “Ku Wawa” and make a new decision.

READ MORE

Matters for Attention in Trademark Refusal Review in China

It is reported that the British Lotus who will adopt “路特斯”, the transliteration of Lotus in Chinese, as its local brand in China due to a Chinese domestic company first registered the trademark of “Youth Lotus”. It’s also mentioned in the report that British lotus lost the trademark though it should have the chance to get it through the trademark refusal review. Today, Bridge IP Law Commentary will introduce you the system of review on the trademark refusal in China.

As regulated in the Article 32 of China trademark law:

READ MORE

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.

READ MORE

The Actual Term of Trademark Registration in China

The brief introduction on the registration process of trademark in China

Bridge IP Law Commentary is frequently asked to introduce the process of the trademark application in China and the time it may take. Actually, the trademark registration is a harsh job here 5 years ago, for the administrative examination and approval could take as long as 3 years due to the imbalance between the rocketing applicaton amount and the low efficiencty of the trademark office in China. Luckily, it has been greatly improved, and 10 months is enough for going through the process. Today, Bridge IP Law Commentary will introduce you the standard process of the China trademark registration:

READ MORE

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.

READ MORE