Weekly China Brand Protection News

May 10, 2025

1. Zhen Kung Fu Trademark Invalidation Case

The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) ruled on an invalidation request filed by Bruce Lee Enterprises regarding the “Kungfu and Design” and “” trademarks (“Disputed Marks”). The ruling determined that: The Disputed Marks are nearly identical to the image and classic poses of Bruce Lee, a renowned Chinese martial arts master. Using this trademark for designated services would likely cause consumers to misidentify the source of services, thus violating Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item 7 of the Trademark Law (deceptive and likely to mislead the public). The Disputed Marks were declared invalid. The plaintiff, Zhen Kung Fu Catering, disagreed with this ruling and in June 2024, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court issued a judgment dismissing Zhen Kung Fu’s appeal. Zhen Kung Fu petitioned to the Beijing High Court, which in October 2024 made a final judgment dismissing the petition and upholding the CNIPA’s verdict.

The Beijing High Court held that: The Disputed Marks consist of the text “Kungfu” and a half-body figure image. Bruce Lee was a famous Chinese kung fu film star, martial arts master, and globally renowned promoter of Chinese kung fu, honored as the “King of Kung Fu.” Before the Disputed Marks’ registration date, Bruce Lee was already a household name with extremely high recognition and widespread influence. Considering the survey results and other evidence submitted by Bruce Lee Enterprises, and the common perception of the public and consumers, when the Disputed Marks are used on designated services, the public could easily associate the half-body figure resembling Bruce Lee’s classic image with Bruce Lee himself, thus mistakenly believing that the relevant services have a specific connection with Bruce Lee. Moreover, evidence from book excerpts submitted by Bruce Lee Enterprises shows that the designer of the Disputed Marks’ image mentioned “Bruce Lee” and “Kung Fu Dragon” multiple times in his writings, claiming to have seized an excellent image resource and using the Kung Fu Dragon image to convey the core value of the Zhen Kung Fu brand to leave a memorable impression on consumers. Besides the Disputed Marks, Zhen Kung Fu Catering has registered dozens of other trademarks related to Bruce Lee’s image. Zhen Kung Fu Catering explicitly acknowledged during the first instance trial that their brand image was created with reference to Bruce Lee’s image. This establishes that Zhen Kung Fu Catering subjectively intended to allow relevant consumers to be confused or misled about the source of services. Considering these factors, the first-instance judgment and the contested ruling correctly determined that the Disputed Marks violated Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item 7 of the 2001 Trademark Law. Zheng Kung Fu Catering’s appeal arguments lack factual and legal basis and were not supported by the court.

The Disputed Marks violated Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item 7 of the 2001 Trademark Law, an absolute prohibition clause, making its registration application illegal. The subsequent publicity, use, and recognition of the Disputed Marks are not factors to be considered when reviewing whether its registration should be maintained. Therefore, Zhen Kung Fu Catering’s appeal claims could not be established and were not supported by the court.

2. Michelin Trademark Invalidation Case

The CNIPA issued a ruling on an invalidation request filed by Michelin Group Corporation against the “Meiqilin Technology MECHELEN M and Design” trademark (Disputed Mark). The ruling determined that the Disputed Mark differed significantly from Michelin’s claimed well-known “Miqilin in Chinese” and “Michelin” trademarks in terms of text composition, pronunciation, visual effect, etc., and did not constitute reproduction or imitation of Michelin’s trademarks. Furthermore, the “playing cards” and other goods designated by the Disputed Mark differ greatly in function, purpose, sales venues, and consumer base from Michelin’s well-known “tire” products. The registration of the Disputed Mark would not mislead the public or harm Michelin’s interests, thus not violating Article 13, Paragraph 3 of the Trademark Law (well-known trademark protection against unauthorized use). The ruling maintained the registration of the Disputed Mark for goods other than “building blocks (toys); toy cars; intelligent toys.”

Michelin disagreed with this ruling and filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, which dismissed Michelin’s claims. Michelin then appealed to the Beijing High Court.

After review, the Beijing High court determined that: Based on evidence submitted by Michelin, including certification records of cited trademark, prior adjudications, prior administrative judgment documents, media reports about Michelin’s products, sponsored events, Michelin food and tourism guides, business revenue, advertising expenditures, and facts established in Administrative Judgments, it can be proven that prior to the Disputed Mark’s application date, through Michelin’s continuous use and extensive promotion, cited trademarks “Miqilin in Chinese” and four “MICHELIN” had formed a stable corresponding relationship and had become widely known to the relevant public in China for “tires,” reaching the level of a well-known trademark.

The disputed trademark “Meiqilin Technology MECHELEN M and image” is a text-image combination trademark, with “Meiqilin in Chinese” and “MECHELEN” as its distinctive identifying parts. These distinctive parts do not form a clear distinction from cited trademarks in terms of text composition, pronunciation, overall visual effect, and meaning. Both cited trademarks “Miqilin in Chinese” and “MICHELIN” are coined words, and in the absence of a reasonable explanation from Meiqilin for including terms similar to “Miqilin in Chinese” and “MICHELIN” in the Disputed Mark, the Disputed Mark constitutes reproduction and imitation of cited trademarks.

The higher the recognition of a well-known trademark, the more easily it leads to dilution or “free-riding” damage, and therefore the more it should receive anti-dilution protection. Thus, the scope of cross-category protection for well-known trademarks is related to their recognition and distinctiveness; the higher the recognition and stronger the distinctiveness, the broader the scope of cross-category protection should be.

Although the remaining goods designated by the Disputed Mark (excluding “building blocks (toys); toy cars; intelligent toys”) differ from the “tires” product for which cited trademark is well-known in terms of function, purpose, consumer base, and production departments, based on the well-known status and high recognition of cited trademarks for “tires,” the coexistence of the Disputed Mark with cited trademarks could easily lead relevant consumers to believe that there is some connection between the Disputed Mark and cited trademarks or Michelin, thereby weakening the distinctiveness of cited trademarks or improperly utilizing their market reputation, potentially damaging Michelin’s interests in its well-known trademarks. Therefore, the registration of the Disputed Mark for goods other than “building blocks (toys); toy cars; intelligent toys” violated Article 13, Paragraph 3 of the Trademark Law and should be invalidated.

Follow us on LinkedIn! Email: trademark@beijingeastip.com Tel: +86 10 8518 9318 | Fax: +86 10 8518 9338 Address: Suite 1601, Tower E2, Oriental Plaza, 1 East Chang An Ave., Dongcheng Dist., Beijing, 100738, P.R. China