On December 14, 2023, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court (BIPC) held a press conference to report on the special trial work to regulate malicious trademark registrations and to release ten typical cases in this regard. These typical cases cover seven administrative cases and three civil lawsuit cases. The administrative cases mainly relate to combating malicious trade mark filings. As for civil lawsuit cases, the BIPC has clearly stated what behavior constitutes an abuse of trademark rights and punitive damages should be applied. The relevant cases are as follows.
Case One: Registering a large number of trademarks within a short period, without proving genuine intent of use or providing other legitimate reasons, constitutes "malicious registration without the purpose of use" as referred to in Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Trademark Law.
【Key Points of Judgment】
When a civil entity applies to register a trademark, there should be a genuine intent of use, with the purpose of meeting its own trademark usage needs. The act of applying to register a trademark should be reasonable and legitimate. In examining whether the applied trademark falls under the circumstances specified in Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Trademark Law, factors such as the number of trademarks applied for registration by the applicant or entities related to it, the designated classes of use, trademark transaction situations, the applicant's industry and business conditions, and the similarity between the applied-for trademark and trademarks with certain popularity owned by others can be considered. Registering a large number of trademarks in multiple Classes of goods or services within a short period, significantly exceeding normal production and operational needs, and being unable to prove genuine intent of use or other legitimate reasons should be deemed as malicious registration without the purpose of use.
【Case Overview】
The disputed trademark "王子" ("Prince") was applied for registration by a liquor company on May 14, 2021 in Class 33 for rice wine, alcoholic beverages (excluding beer), and other goods. The China National Intellectual Property Office (CNIPA) deemed that the registration application for the disputed trademark violated the provisions of Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Trademark Law, thus rejecting the registration application.
After the first-instance trial by the BIPC, it was established that the liquor company was established on August 26, 2020, with its business scope including liquor sales, food sales, and daily necessities sales. The company had applied for a total of over 340 trademarks over goods or services in different Classes, including 300 trademarks accumulated between 2020 and 2021. In the second-instance trial, the Beijing High People's Court supplemented that the liquor company's 300-plus trademark applications included trademarks similar to those owned by others, such as "迈巴赫" ("Maybach").Both the first and second-instance courts concluded that the evidence in the case failed to prove the actual usage of the disputed trademark, and there was no proof that the liquor company had genuine intent of use or other legitimate reasons. Considering the time span, quantity of applications, involved Classes and goods/services, and other factors related to the liquor company's trademark registration, it could be determined that the company's behavior of applying for a large number of trademarks, including the disputed trademark, went beyond normal business needs, constituting the circumstance of "malicious trademark registration applications without the purpose of use" as stipulated in Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Trademark Law.
Case Two: When the current or former legal representative, senior management personnel, or other staff of the trademark applicant had previously worked for others, and, being aware of another party's trademark with prior use, proceeds to register a similar trademark for similar goods, it violates the provisions of Article 15, Paragraph 2 of the Trademark Law.
【Key Points of Judgment】
The "other relationships" mentioned in Article 15, Paragraph 2 of the Trademark Law refer to specific relationships other than those specified in Paragraph 1 of the same article. The situations where a party is aware that another party has not registered a trademark and should actively avoid conflict include relationships such as familial, employment, or close business address proximity between the trademark applicant and the prior user.
The current or former legal representative, senior management personnel, or other staff of the trademark applicant having previously worked for another party constitutes the "other relationships" specified in this paragraph. By virtue of these relationships, being aware of another party's prior used trademark and proceeding to register a similar trademark for similar goods violates the provisions of Article 15, Paragraph 2 of the Trademark Law.
【Case Overview】
The disputed trademark was applied for registration by an education company on March 16, 2018 in Class 41 for training, education, organizing and arranging conferences, among other services. An academy raised invalidation action against this disputed trademark. The CNIPA held that the registration of the disputed trademark did not constitute the circumstances specified in Article 15, Paragraph 2 of the Trademark Law in 2013. However, it violated the provisions of Article 32 of the Trademark Law. Therefore, the disputed trademark was declared invalid over training and education services, while being maintained for the remaining services.
After the first-instance trial by the BIPC, it was concluded that the evidence in the case could prove that the academy's "发树" ("Fashu") logo had been used and had a certain reputation before the application date of the disputed trademark. The disputed trademark was similar to the "发树" ("Fashu") logo used by the academy, its registered services "organizing and arranging conferences, "organizing cultural activities, etc." are similar to the academy's practical activities, such as opening ceremonies and MBA education and training. The academy had a labor relationship with the original legal representative of the education company. Despite being aware of the academy's prior use of the "发树"("Fashu") logo, the education company still applied to register a similar trademark for similar services. This constituted the circumstances specified in Article 15, Paragraph 2 of the Trademark Law in 2013. After the first-instance judgment was rendered, no party appealed, and the judgment became effective.
Case Three: When a trademark applicant applies to register a trademark containing a geographical indication trademark but fails to prove that the specified goods originate from the protected area of the geographical indication trademark, the use of the disputed trademark should be deemed likely to mislead the public.
【Key Points of Judgment】
The provisions in the Trademark Law regarding the protection of geographical indications aim to prevent the misleading of the public by goods not originating from the area indicated by the geographical indication but using a trademark containing that geographical indication. This ensures that the specific quality, reputation, or other characteristics associated with goods using a trademark containing a geographical indication are primarily determined by the natural or cultural factors of the area indicated by that geographical indication. If there is no evidence proving that the goods originate from the protected area of the geographical indication and the applicant still applies to register a trademark containing that geographical indication, the use of such a trademark should be deemed likely to mislead the public.
【Case Overview】
The disputed trademark "老鹰茶" ("Eagle Tea") was applied for registration by a tea company on April 20, 2015, with designated goods "tea, etc." in Class 30. The CNIPA deemed the registration of the disputed trademark to be in violation of the provisions of Article 16, Paragraph 1 of the Trademark Law in 2013 and declared the disputed trademark invalid.
After the first-instance trial by the BIPC, it was established that on July 31, 2012, the original State Administration for Quality Supervision, Inspection, and Quarantine approved "老鹰茶" as a nationally protected geographical indication product. The protected area of the geographical indication product includes six administrative regions: Meiluo Township, Fengle Township, Wajiao Township, Caoke Township, Liziping Township, and Xinmian Town, all under the jurisdiction of Sichuan's Shimian County. The first-instance court concluded that the evidence in the case showed that "老鹰茶" had been approved as a nationally protected geographical indication product before the application date of the disputed trademark. The protected area of the geographical indication product included six administrative regions in Sichuan's Shimian County. "老鹰茶," a type of tea, is closely associated with its growing environment, while the tea company is located in Chengdu, Sichuan Province, with its technical guidance point for the processing of Eagle Tea (Black Tea) in Qionglai City, Sichuan Province. The evidence in the case was insufficient to prove that the tea goods designated for use by the disputed trademark "老鹰茶" originated from the six administrative regions in Sichuan's Asbestos County. Therefore, the use of the disputed trademark was deemed likely to mislead the public, causing relevant consumers to have a mistaken perception of the origin of the goods. Consequently, the registration of the disputed trademark violated the provisions of Article 16, Paragraph 1 of the Trademark Law in 2013. The first-instance judgment dismissed the tea company's lawsuit, and the Beijing High People's Court upheld the original judgment in the second instance.
Case Four: Television programs and program names with a certain influence constitute prior rights as stipulated in Article 32 of the Trademark Law. When a trademark applicant attempts to register an identical or similar trademark for the same or similar goods as those associated with a TV program or program name that already has a certain influence, it should be subject to the restrictions of Article 32 of the Trademark Law.
【Key Points of Judgment】
Television programs and programs possess the attributes of goods, and program names with a certain influence fall under the category of "names of goods with a certain influence" as specified in Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, falling within the protective scope of "prior rights" as defined in Article 32 of the Trademark Law. Therefore, when a trademark applicant attempts to register a trademark identical or similar to the name of a TV program or program with a certain influence for the same or similar goods, it may easily lead the relevant public to mistakenly believe that there is a specific connection between the trademark applicant and the owner of the prior right. This constitutes the situation of "harming others' existing prior rights" as stipulated in Article 32 of the Trademark Law.
【Case Overview】
The disputed trademark "远方的家深度旅游顾问 Journey Ahead" was applied for registration by a cultural industry company on March 5, 2014, with designated goods "journals, books, and periodicals, etc." in Class 16. The CNIPA deemed that the registration of the disputed trademark violated the provision of Article 32 of the Trademark Law, which infringing others' existing prior rights, and decided not to approve the registration of the disputed trademark.
After the first-instance trial by the BIPC, it was determined that "远方的家" ("Journey Ahead") is a large daily travel program broadcast by the China Central Television (CCTV) Chinese International Channel. The evidence in the case proved that the program "远方的家" had started airing before the application date of the disputed trademark and was known to the relevant public. It had formed a strong association with CCTV, giving CCTV prior rights to the name "远方的家." The disputed trademark included the name of the program "远方的家," and it constituted a similar sign to a name with certain influence held by others. Considering the actual use of the disputed trademark by the cultural industry company, which operated and published the magazine "Journey Ahead 远方的家," a travel magazine closely associated with the content of the "远方的家" program, it was found that the use of the disputed trademark could easily mislead the relevant public into believing that the magazine was provided by or affiliated with CCTV, causing confusion and misidentification of the source of the goods. Therefore, the application for the registration of the disputed trademark violated the provision of Article 32 of the Trademark Law regarding "not harming others' existing prior rights." Accordingly, the first-instance judgment dismissed the cultural industry company's lawsuit, and no party appealed, making the first-instance judgment effective.
Case Five: When a trademark applicant, with the aim of improperly occupying public resources, extensively applies to register trademarks containing public event terms, names of public cultural resources, etc., it constitutes the situation referred to in Article 44, Paragraph 1 of the Trademark Law as "obtaining registration through other unfair means."
【Key Points of Judgment】
The phrase "obtaining registration through other unfair means" in Article 44, Paragraph 1 of the Trademark Law refers to trademark registration activities that disrupt the order of trademark registration, harm public interests, improperly occupy public resources, or seek unfair benefits through means other than deceptive methods. When a trademark applicant extensively applies to register trademarks containing public event terms, names of public cultural resources, etc., with the subjective intention of improperly occupying public resources, it should be recognized as falling under the circumstances specified in Article 44, Paragraph 1 of the Trademark Law as "obtaining registration through other unfair means."
【Case Overview】
The disputed trademark "泉城百花园" ("Quancheng Baihuayuan") was applied for registration by Mr. Li on March 6, 2020 on the services, such as clothing rental and matchmaking in Class 45. The CNIPA deemed that the registration of the disputed trademark violated the provisions of Article 44, Paragraph 1 of the Trademark Law and decided to declare the disputed trademark invalid.
After the first-instance trial by the BIPC, it was established that "泉城百花园" is the name of a pastoral comprehensive project operated by a company named Zhujiayu Company. The disputed trademark "泉城百花园" is identical to the name of this project. In addition to the disputed trademark, Mr. Li had applied to register more than 170 trademarks for various goods and services, including "方舱" ("Fangcang"), "逆行者" ("Frontline Warrior"), "火神山" ("Fire God Mountain"), "雷神山" ("Thunder God Mountain"), "章邱古城" ("Zhangqiu Ancient City"), "泉乡药谷" ("Quanxiang Medicinal Valley"), and many other trademarks related to epidemic prevention or similar to the names of projects developed in Zhangqiu District, Jinan City. Mr. Li's actions clearly exceeded normal commercial use purposes, violated the principle of good faith and credit, disrupted the normal order of trademark registration management, and harmed the fair competitive market environment. Therefore, the registration of the disputed trademark constituted the situation referred to in Article 44, Paragraph 1 of the Trademark Law as "obtaining registration through other unfair means." In conclusion, the first-instance judgment dismissed Mr. Li's lawsuit, and no party appealed, making the first-instance judgment effective.
Case Six: When a trademark agency, with the aim of circumventing the law, falsely applies to register a trademark in the name of its former senior executive, such trademark registration behavior should be considered an act of the trademark agency and is subject to the restrictions of Article 19, Paragraph 4 of the Trademark Law.
【Key Points of Judgment】
Article 19, Paragraph 4 of the Trademark Law explicitly prohibits trademark agencies from registering trademarks. The legislative purpose is to protect public interests, prevent trademark agencies from maliciously registering others' trademarks for profit, and disrupt the order of trademark registration by taking advantage of their familiarity with the trademark registration process. Prohibiting trademark agencies from falsely applying to register trademarks in the name of entities with specific relationships aligns with the legislative purpose of this provision. To regulate certain trademark agencies that assist or directly engage in malicious applications and hoarding, maintaining a healthy market economy and trademark management order, the behavior of a trademark agency falsely applying to register a trademark in the name of its former senior executive should be considered an act of the trademark agency and is subject to the restrictions of Article 19, Paragraph 4 of the Trademark Law.
【Case Overview】
The disputed trademark "步步高" ("Bu BuGao") was applied for registration by Mr. Yao on July 4, 2019, with designated goods, "snacks primarily consisting of fruits and vegetables, pickled fruits, and wood ear mushrooms, etc." in Class 29. The CNIPA deemed that the registration of the disputed trademark violated the provisions of Article 19, Paragraph 4, among others, and decided to declare the disputed trademark invalid.
After the first-instance trial by the BIPC, it was established that an intellectual property agency was established in 2012, and Mr. Yao was a former shareholder and senior executive of the said IP agency company. About 20 days before the application date of the disputed trademark, namely, on June 14, 2019, Mr. Yao ceased to serve as a senior executive of the company. The first-instance court determined that although Mr. Yao was not a trademark agency himself, he had a specific relationship with the trademark agency. Moreover, the evidence showed that the majority of the more than 60 trademarks applied for registration over various goods and services by Mr. Yao were mostly registered through the representation of the trademark agency that he once served. Additionally, several trademarks under Mr. Yao's name were listed for sale on trademark trading platforms. Based on the comprehensive evidence, it was determined that the registration of the disputed trademark was an act of the trademark agency, aiming to circumvent the law by using Mr. Yao's name. This behavior violated the principle of good faith and credit and should be subject to the restrictions of Article 19, Paragraph 4 of the Trademark Law. Therefore, the first-instance judgment dismissed Mr. Yao's lawsuit, and no party appealed, making the first-instance judgment effective.
Case Seven: In the face of malicious cross-class registration of well-known trademarks in the online environment, factors such as the subjective malicious intent of the actor and the degree of overlap of the relevant audience for goods or services should be fully considered. The scope of protection for well-known trademarks across classes should be reasonably determined.
【Key Points of Judgment】
When determining whether a trademark in the online environment constitutes a well-known trademark, the characteristics and speed of information dissemination in the mobile internet environment, the establishment and scope of brand influence, among other factors, should be fully considered. A comprehensive assessment of various elements for well-known trademark recognition should be conducted, avoiding a one-sided and mechanistic consideration of the length of trademark use. In cases of malicious cross-class registration of well-known trademarks by actors in the online environment, factors such as the actor's degree of subjective malice and whether the audience for related goods or services highly overlaps should be thoroughly considered. This will help reasonably determine the scope of protection for well-known trademarks across classes and strengthen regulatory efforts against malicious registration behaviors.
【Case Overview】
The disputed trademark "快手老铁" ("KuaishouLaoTie") was applied for registration by a liquor sales company on August 29, 2017, with designated services, "accounting" in Class 35. The cited trademark, owned by an information technology company, was granted registration on November 14, 2015 over services "program production, entertainment, etc." in Class 41. The CNIPA deemed that the registration of the disputed trademark did not violate the provisions of Article 13 of the Trademark Law and decided to maintain the registration of the disputed trademark.
After the first-instance trial by the BIPC, it was established that the "快手及图" ("Kuaishou and device") trademark of the information technology company had undergone long-term and extensive use and promotion before the application date of the disputed trademark. It was widely known among the relevant public, constituting a well-known trademark used in "program production, entertainment," and other services. The disputed trademark, "快手老铁," contains the significant identifying words "快手" ("Kuaishou"), and "老铁" ("LaoTie") was also a trademark previously registered and used by the information technology company. Therefore, the disputed trademark constituted copy and imitation of the "快手及图" ("Kuaishou and device") trademark. Although the designated services "accounting" of the disputed trademark differed from the services of "program production, entertainment," considering that services such as "program production" were provided on the Kuaishou platform for ordinary consumers, it was observed that the audience for these services overlapped with the audience for "accounting" services. Given the massive user base of 700 million on the Kuaishou platform, which is an almost nationwide short video platform, it was reasonable to assume that entities engaged in "accounting" services could promote their services on this platform. Therefore, when the relevant public sees the disputed trademark used in "accounting" services, they may easily establish a considerable connection with the "快手及图" ("Kuaishou and device") trademark and mistakenly believe that the service originates from the information technology company or has a specific connection, thereby weakening the distinctiveness of the well-known trademark and causing harm to the legitimate interests of the information technology company. Thus, the registration of the disputed trademark constituted the circumstance specified in Article 13, Paragraph 3 of the Trademark Law and should be declared invalid. After the first-instance judgment was pronounced, none of the parties appealed, making the first-instance judgment effective.
Case Eight: When a party is well aware that the registered trademark it obtained has significant defects in rights, yet its primary purpose is to seize undue commercial benefits and harm others' legitimate rights and interests, sending warning letters to others, filing complaints with industrial and commercial authorities, etc., such actions seriously violate the principle of good faith and constitute an abuse of trademark rights.
【Key Points of Judgment】
The application for registration and use of trademarks should adhere to the principle of good faith. When the trademark registrant is well aware that the registered trademark has significant defects in rights but still pursues the main purpose of gaining undue commercial benefits and harming others' legitimate rights and interests by sending warning letters and filing complaints, such behavior seriously violates the principle of good faith and constitutes an abuse of trademark rights. The trademark registrant should bear the legal responsibility to compensate the necessary expenses incurred by the aggrieved party in defending its legitimate rights against the trademark registrant's abuse of trademark rights.
【Case Overview】
A tourism company filed a lawsuit, alleging that a technology company, despite being well aware of the popularity of the enterprise name "古北水镇" ("Gubei Water Town") and the unregistered trademark of a tourism company, still applied to register the "古北水镇" ("Gubei Water Town") trademark for goods in Class 33 (liquor) and Class 25 (clothing). The technology company subsequently sent infringement warning letters and filed trademark infringement complaints with the industrial and commercial authorities, demanding that the tourism company ceases using the "古北水镇" ("Gubei Water Town") trademark on liquor product packaging. The actions of the technology company infringed on the legitimate rights of the tourism company, obstructing the legitimate application for registration of the "古北水镇" ("Gubei Water Town") trademark and disrupting the order of trademark registration. It also violated the principle of good faith, constituting unfair competition. Therefore, the tourism company brought the case to court, seeking a judgment that the technology company compensates it for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 500,000 RMB, and publishes a statement to eliminate the impact.
In the second-instance trial, the BIPC determined that the technology company's behaviorseriously violated the principle of good faith and constituted unfair competition by abusing trademark rights.When sending infringement warning letters and filing industrial and commercial complaints, it was aware of the significant defects in the rights foundation of the registered trademark. However, the technology company still exercised the exclusive rights of the registered trademark with the main purpose of gaining undue commercial benefits and harming others' legitimate rights and interests. The tourism company, in order to defend its legitimate rights and cope with the technology company's abuse of trademark rights, incurred necessary expenses that constituted direct economic losses resulting from the aforementioned actions. Accordingly, the technology company should legally bear the compensation responsibility. In conclusion, the BIPC, in the second-instance judgment, dismissed the appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment of the People's Court of Dongcheng District, Beijing.
Case Nine: When a party violates the principle of good faith, bringing a trademark infringement lawsuit against others' legitimate use of the trademark based on its rights obtained in bad faith constitutes an abuse of rights.
【Key Points of Judgment】
The acquisition and exercise of trademark rights should adhere to the principle of good faith. When a party, in violation of the principle of good faith, brings an infringement lawsuit against others' legitimate use of the trademark based on its rights obtained in bad faith, not only does it harm the legitimate rights of others, but it also disrupts the fair competition order in the market. This constitutes an abuse of rights, and its litigation claims should not be supported according to the law.
【Case Overview】
Mr. Ma applied to register the "jiaoren骄人" trademark for jewelry products in Class 14 on May 6, 2008. The registration was approved on March 28, 2010, and he had used the trademark to produce and sell a "骄人" brand series of diamonds. Mr. Ma discovered that a jewelry company was selling "骄人" series rings and necklaceson the JD.com platform, believing that the actions of the jewelry company and JD.com infringed on his trademark rights. Therefore, he sued them, requesting the court to order the jewelry company and JD.com to immediately cease infringement and compensate him for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 50,000 RMB.
In the second-instance trial, the BIPC considered that, taking into account factors such as the distinctiveness and similarity of the involved marks, Mr. Ma's subjective intent in applying for the "jiaoren骄人" trademark, the actual use of the mark, and Mr. Ma's application for other trademarks, it could be determined that Mr. Ma's application for the "jiaoren骄人" trademark violated the principle of good faith, and his basis for asserting rights in this case lacked legitimacy. At the same time, a previous effective judgment had already recognized that an affiliate of the jewelry company had actually used "骄人" as a product name before Mr. Ma applied for the "jiaoren骄人" trademark, and based on this, dismissed Mr. Ma's lawsuit request. Mr. Ma, in this case, raised a similar lawsuit against the jewelry company's sale of the "骄人" series on the JD.com platform, using the same reasons. Subjectively, this could not be considered in good faith. With insufficient evidence to prove Mr. Ma's genuine intent or factual use of the "jiaoren骄人" trademark, bringing a trademark infringement lawsuit and claiming compensation against the jewelry company, which was legitimately using the "骄人" mark, constituted an abuse of rights. In conclusion, the BIPC, in the second-instance judgment, dismissed the appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment of the Xicheng District People's Court, Beijing.
Case Ten: The infringing party extensively imitates the rights holder's well-known brand in various aspects, including trademarks, product packaging, slogans, and sales methods. Moreover, the infringing party engages in "comprehensive" imitation and "genuine and fake mixed sales." The evident subjective malice of attaching to the rights holder's reputation results in severe consequences. Punitive damages should be applied.
【Key Points of Judgment】
The "brand effect" is comprehensive and complex, not solely contained within a single trademark; every aspect of a business's production and operation can serve as a carrier of brand reputation. Therefore, different from infringement actions targeting a single trademark, "comprehensive" brand imitation inflicts greater damage to brand image and rights. Specific patterns of such behavior may include registering and using trademarks similar to the rights holder's, copying packaging decorations, selling "genuine" and "counterfeit" products together, and using misleading advertising language. For serious infringement actions targeting the well-known brand with "comprehensive" imitation, punitive damages should be applied. This not only benefits the protection of the rights holder's legitimate interests and the rights of consumers but also contributes to fostering a market competition order characterized by honesty and orderliness.
【Case Overview】
A liquor company owned the trademark rights for the "野格" (Wild Geese) series trademarks over goods,"alcoholic beverages, etc." in Class 33. The company claimed that another liquor company, without permission, used similar signs such as "野格哈古雷斯" (Wild Geese Hercules), "YEGE," and "野格狩猎者" (Wild Geese Hunter) on products such as "liquor, beer, functional beverages." Additionally, they accused the infringing company of copying their product packaging, decorations, using easily misleading promotional language, and engaging in "genuine and fake mixed sales." These actions constituted infringement of their trademark rights and unfair competition, leading to legal obligations to cease infringement, eliminate the impact, and compensate for losses.
In the first-instance trial, the BIPC found that the "野格" series trademarks owned by the liquor company had become a well-known trademark for alcoholic beverages through long-term publicity and use. The infringing company, without permission, used similar signs such as "YEGE" and "野格狩猎者" on products like "liquor, beer, functional beverages" and imitated the packaging of the liquor company's similar products, using easily misleading promotional language. Moreover, the infringing company mixed and sold infringing products with the liquor company's similar products. These actions infringed the liquor company's exclusive trademark rights and constituted unfair competition. Despite multiple rights protection statements and warning letters issued by the liquor company, the infringing company continued the infringement, displaying clear intent. Given these circumstances, punitive damages should be applied to the infringing company's actions. In conclusion, the first-instance judgment ruled that the infringing company should cease infringement, eliminate the impact, and compensate the liquor company for economic losses of 10 million RMB. After the first-instance judgment, the infringing company appealed, and the Beijing High People's Court rejected the appeal, upholding the original judgment.
Deputy Chief Judge Song Yushui of the BIPC introduced that the phenomenon of malicious trademark registration persists, and wrongdoers continue to register trademarks by appropriating public resources, terms from social trends, or unique names associated with well-known brands, intending to exploit additional commercial value. Converting these into unfair business gains not only severely harms the legitimate interests of rights holders but also disrupts China's trademark registration management order and market competition order, damaging public interests. Regulating malicious trademark registration, creating a fair and orderly rule-of-law business environment, is a consensus across various sectors of society and a judicial attitude consistently upheld by the BIPC.
It is understood that the BIPC will continue to leverage the coordinated and interconnected role of various provisions of the Trademark Law in regulating malicious trademark registration. They aim to explore ways to enhance regulatory efforts against malicious registration and abuse of trademark rights in civil trademark cases in the future.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
