In July 2013, the Beijing High Court (second instance court) sustained the decision held by the Beijing First Intermediate Court (first instance court), and recognized an internationally known hotel’s English Mark constitute as well-known in China. This internationally known hotel is represented by Beijing East IP Law Firm.

In December, 2012, the first instance court (2012) Yi Zhong Zhi Xing Chu Zi No. 295 Decision supported this internationally known hotel’s claim, revoked the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board’s decision, and recognized this internationally known hotel’s English mark in Class 43 services for restaurants and hotels constitute as well-known in China. The first instance court also recognized as follows: the Chinese equivalent of this internationally known hotel’s English mark is one of the primary transliterations used by Chinese governments and varieties of media; the disputed mark is a pure Chinese word mark and is identical to this internationally known hotel’s transliteration, the overall appearance of this disputed mark constituted as a translation of this internationally known hotel’s English mark. The designated use of the disputed mark for “sale of commercial housing; real estate agencies” and the hotel services of this internationally know hotel all falls into the real estate services field, the two marks has certain association. Meanwhile, considering this internationally known hotel’s English mark had became a well-known mark and is more famous, the disputed mark’s registration on services for “sale of commercial housing; real estate agencies” may mislead the relevant public, which will lead to damage of this internationally known hotel’s interests. Therefore, the disputed mark shall not be registered and shall be forbidden from using on services for “sale of commercial housing; real estate agencies.”

In March 2013, the holder of the disputed mark, unsatisfied with the first instance court’s decision, appealed to the Beijing High Court. In July 2013, the Beijing High Court dismissed the disputed mark owner’s request for appeal in the (2013) Gao Xing Zhong Zi No. 927 decision.

On August 16, 2013 China Intellectual Property News reported the second instance of this case, where many media reposted from. Please see below for parts of the relevant links:

http://www.tmweek.com/yw_list_danye.asp?newsid=2802

http://www.iprchn.com/Index_NewsContent.aspx?newsId=63339