Tag Archives: trademark transfer

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

How to Judge the Validity of Trademark Transfer without Inner Approval of the Company in China

Posted on by

(By Albert Chen) Abstract:

When a company’s trademark agent transfers a trademark without approval, a judgement of the validity of said transfer requires not only a consideration of the company approval, but also a determination of the third party good faith in the transfer. When a condition is not fulfilled the transfer will invariably be considered invalid.

Case Introduction:

In 2001, Leidi (China) Co., Ltd. (“Company L”) was granted the exclusive right in the use of the trademark “雷迪” (read as “Leidi” in Chinese). In November of 2002, Wu, as the executive director of Leidi China, transferred the trademark to the Hua Qu Duo Investment Company (“Company H”). The State Trademark Office made an announcement regarding the transfer in October 2003. Subsequently, Company H licensed the trademark to the Shanghai-based Leidi Mechanics Co., Ltd. (“Company S,” which had no affiliation with Company L).

READ MORE

Would Those First Users Involved in OEM Constitute Trademark Infringement?

Posted on by

(By Albert Chen) The author once introduced readers to different judicial opinions adopted in the Shanghai and Guangzhou courts over whether trademark infringement could be caused by an OEM. According to a ruling handed down by the Fujian Higher People’s Court in 2012, which came to the attention of the author recently, the judge confirmed that an OEM could lead to trademark infringement, but decide at the same time that no liability shall be taken by the first user of the mark, for no confusion would be made. As for that point, the author certainly has a different opinion.

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 Court Verify the Validity of a Company’s Trademark Transfer 5 Years after Its Cancellation?

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) The Luzhou Qian Nian Liquor Co., Ltd. (“Company L”) found that its competitor, the Shandong-based Zhu Ge Jia Liquor Co., Ltd. (“Company S”) acquired three trademarks from a company that had its registration for the marks cancelled five years prior to the trademark transfer. Following this, Company L filed a request to have the trademark revoked, because it had not been used for a continuous three-year period. However, the Trademark Office denied the application, and Company L requested a review of the decision, which was also rejected, leading Company L to ultimately file an administrative lawsuit. In the lawsuit, Company L was equally unsuccessful, and the court refused its demands in both the first and second instance. Following a series of rejections, Company L then appealed the case to the Supreme People’s Court (“Supreme Court”) for a rehearing. 

READ MORE

How to Judge the Validity of Trademark Transfer without Inner Approval of the Company in China

Posted on by

Abstract:

(By Albert Chen) When a company’s trademark agent transfers a trademark without approval, a judgment of the validity of said transfer requires not only a consideration of the presence (or lack of) company approval, but also a determination of whether there was good faith when considering the third party in the transfer. When it can be shown that no inner-company approval was made, and that the transaction was not undertaken in good faith, such a transfer will invariably be considered invalid.

READ MORE

Would Those First Users Involved in OEM Constitute Trademark Infringement?

Posted on by
360截图-30623479

(By Albert Chen) The author once introduced readers to different judicial opinions adopted in the Shanghai and Guangzhou courts over whether trademark infringement could be caused by an OEM. According to a ruling handed down by the Fujian Higher People’s Court in 2012, which came to the attention of the author recently, the judge confirmed that an OEM could lead to trademark infringement, but at the same time, the court also decided that no liability shall be taken by the first user of the mark, for no confusion would be made. As for that point, the author certainly has a different opinion.

READ MORE

Analysis on Trademark Infringement Case of Adidas

Posted on by
20130214-周四

 (By Luo Yanjie) In 2001, the globally known sportswear brand Adidas acquired a trademark certificate issued by the Trademark Office of the State Administration of Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”), namely a certificate numbered 1489454 for the “three slants” trademark, which was approved in Class 25 for clothing, ball shoes, hats, socks and other similar products; in addition, the certificate numbered 1536558 for the “three slants” trademark was approved in Class 18, which covers bags, clothing case, traveling bags and belts. On June 21 2003, Adidas transferred the trademarks to its affiliates.

READ MORE

How to Acquire the Trademarks of Companies Whose Business Have Been Canceled or Whose Licenses Have Been Revoked in China?

Posted on by

By Albert Chen

Trademark assignees may sometimes encounter an awkward situation: the target trademark is in the hands of a company that has had its business license revoked or that has been cancelled. Although the trademark is still valid, others seem to have no legitimate means to acquire it. So, under these circumstances, does the assignee really have no means to acquire the trademark? In today’s post, you will find the answer.

I. Why would trademarks be left unused?

According to relevant statistics, the average life of Chinese companies is seven years, and the average of life of privately owned companies is only 2.9 years. On the other hand, however, the validity period of a trademark is ten years, and there is nothing in Chinese law that states that the trademark shall automatically become invalid when the business license of its holder is revoked or the company is cancelled. Especially when the business license has been revoked, the company still has legal capacity. It is merely incapable of conducting civil acts, including the use and transfer of trademarks, because its business license or chop has been announced invalid or has been confiscated under the punishment of business license revocation.

READ MORE

Apple Finally Gets its iPad Trademark in China

Posted on by

According to China Trademark Office’s latest ” Announcement of Trademarks “, the iPad trademark, which used to owned by Shenzhen Proview were formally transferred to Apple on July 27, 2012. And by Chinese Trademark Law, Apple could exercise the exclusive right over the trademark from the day.

As we reported last week :

Grandall Law Firm, GH Law Firm, Hejun Vanguard Group and other units providing legal or agency service to Proview applied to Shenzhen Yantian People’s Court in written for freezing of iPad trademark in China on 23 July,2012, also they have submitted the guarantee of RMB 300 million.

READ MORE

Wanglaoji Trademark Lawsuit and China Trademark License Record System

Posted on by

By You Yunting

As reported (note: the link is in Chinese), the eye-catching trademark battle on Wanglaoji, also known as Wong Lo Kat in Hong Kong, as been adjudicated by Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court on the 13th July 2012, by which Hong Dao Group’s (the “Hong Dao”) appeal to revoke the arbitration decision by CIETAC was refused. This means the arbitration decision shall take effect from 9th May 2012, the two supplementary trademark license contracts signed by the disputed parties are judged invalid, and Hong Dao will no longer use the trademark of Wanglaoji. For the case, we have expressed our opinions in the past post “Will JDB Revoke Wang Lao Ji Trademark Arbitration Award through Litigation?”

READ MORE

Could There Be Any Improvement on Facebook’s Trademark Application Strategy in China?

READ MORE

Matters for Attention in the Trademark Opposition

Recently, the Qiaodan Company (Qiaodan is the pronunciation of Michael Jordan’s name), a Chinese domestic sporting goods manufacturer, confronted trademark troubles on IPO in China, because Nike has opposed to 8 trademarks of Qiaodan, claiming that it might lead to the confusion with Nike’s “Air Jordan”. Nevertheless, such opposition was refused by China Trademark Office, and Nike filed no administration lawsuit afterwards.

The opposition filed by Nike to Qiaodan is based on the provision of the China trademark law:

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

No “iPad” Chinese trademark right for Apple after payment in the transaction, and our analysis.

—-the Key points to the trademark transaction under the frame of China laws

Highlight:Apple gets involved in the litigation against a Chinese company for the ownership of iPad trademark, which Apple has claimed the property from purchase. However, such conflict could be averted if proper preparation has been done before the trademark transaction.

Recently, the trademark conflict over “iPad” initiated by Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL, the “Apple”) against Proview Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (the “Proview”) was heard for the third time on Shenzhen Intermediate Court. In the trial, Apple affirmed it owns the global trademark right of “iPad”, which was stroke back by Proview that such right in mainland China is exclusively held by Proview and the claimed transaction of Apple for the acquisition of such right has no permission or authorization from it, furthermore, Apple was also accused of its malicious purchase of the registered “iPad” behind the IP Application Development Company worldwide.

READ MORE