Weekly China Brand Protection News

April 10, 2024

1. The SPC held that the burden of proof for individual retailers’ legitimate source defense should be moderately reduced

Nature Republic Co., Ltd. (“Nature Republic”) is the exclusive licensee of the “NA YI QI ER in Chinese” mark with reg. no. 9481384 (license term: Jan. 1, 2018 to June 5, 2022, said mark was later assigned to Nature Republic in 2020). Nature Republic sued Jianglin Cosmetics Store (“Jianglin”) for trademark infringement. Jianglin argued that the evidence it submitted could prove that the alleged infringing goods came from legitimate sources, and that it had exercised reasonable care during the purchase of the alleged infringing goods and should not be liable for compensation. The first and second instance courts did not recognize Jianglin’s legitimate source defense and ruled that Jianglin should stop the infringement and compensate Nature Republic for reasonable legal costs and economic losses of RMB10,000 (USD1,383). The Supreme People’s Court held in retrial that the review of the objective elements of the legitimate source defense should proceed from the original legislative intention and comprehensively consider factors such as the market position of the seller, the rights holder’s legal costs, market transaction habits, and lay a reasonable burden of proof on retailers. Here, Jianglin, as an individual retailer, has a weak position in market activities and its trading methods are usually more flexible. Its burden of proof to prove legitimate sources should be appropriately reduced, and the completeness of the formal requirements for evidence should not be too stringent. The chain of transactions shown in the product distribution contracts, outbound orders, inbound orders and other documented evidence is complete and in line with general trading practices. Its source of supply has been proven legitimate. Therefore, the evidence can carefully prove that Jianglin obtained the accused infringing goods through legal channels. As an individual industrial and commercial owner, Jianglin has a small business scale and low professionalism. The bar to determine its ability as to understand whether the goods he sells is infringement should not be too high. Based on the evidence in the case, it can be inferred that it did not know and should not have known that the goods it sold were infringing goods, and there was no subjective fault. Therefore, Jianglin has completed its burden of proving that the accused infringing goods have a legitimate source and that it has exercised reasonable care. Its legitimate source defense is satisfied and it should not be liable for compensation.

2. The distinctiveness of a registered trademark is not a consideration in determining similar trademarks

Jinjia SU is the applicant of the “” mark with app. No. 32253377 (“Disputed Mark”). Beijing Xiaoguncha Co., Ltd. (“Xiaoguancha”) filed an opposition against the Disputed Mark based on its prior marks such as “” and “.” Jinjia SU argued that the word “Xiaoguancha in Chinese” in Xiaoguancha’s prior marks lacked distinctiveness, and the scope of protection should match its distinctiveness and should not hinder the legitimate use of other market entities. After trial, the Beijing High Court determined that the distinctiveness of the words “Xiaoguancha in Chinese” is not a factor to consider in determining whether a disputed mark and the cited marks constitute similar trademarks. If the distinctiveness of cited marks is overemphasized and later marks allowed to be registered by adding other elements to the cited marks that have been allowed, it will be seen as a direct denial of the validity of the cited marks when judging similarity. This practice not only indirectly invalidated the cited marks, damages the cited mark owner’s rights, and impacts the trademark registration order. The cited marks in this case have been approved for registration, and their validity should be respected. Therefore, Su’s lack of distinctiveness argument cannot be supported.

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