Weekly China Trademark News Updates

July 13, 2021

1. “Tencent Weishi in Chinese” is ruled not similar to “Weishi in Chinese”

The Beijing High Court made a final judgment on an administrative trademark invalidation dispute in favor of Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (“Tencent”), and against Beijing Gaojie Shengshi Technology Co., Ltd. (“Gaojie”) and the CNIPA.

The Beijing High Court found that: although the disputed mark “Tencent Weishi in Chinese” and the cited trademarks 1-6 “Weishi in Chinese, “Weishi in Chinese”, “Weishi Design”, ““,”,” and “” all contain “Weishi in Chinese”, however, the rather distinctive trademark “Tencent in Chinese” has been added in front of the disputed mark. Considering that the use of “Weishi in Chinese” in class 9 goods was not so distinctive, the disputed mark and the cited trademarks has certain differences in the overall enunciation and composition elements. Tencent submitted a consent letter issued by Gaojie, which clearly stated the detail information of the disputed mark and each of the cited trademarks, and the undertaking to agree unconditionally, permanently, and irrevocably the coexistence of the said trademarks, which was sufficient to prove that Gaojie has agreed to the disputed mark’s registration on all approved goods in class 9. If there was no other evidence to prove that the coexistence of the disputed mark and the cited trademarks will cause confusion among the relevant public regarding the source of the goods, the disputed mark can be maintained.

2. “Double Eleven in Chinese” and “618 Carnival” are all invalidated at last

The Beijing High Court made a final judgement on an administrative trademark invalidation dispute in favor of JD.com and against Alibaba and the CNIPA. The mark involved is the “Double Eleven in Chinese” trademark in class 35 for “sales for others,” which the court found that JD.com submitted sufficient evidence to prove that using the disputed mark on “advertisement and sales for others” services was likely to cause relevant public to believe that such a term was a sales description or slogan. Such use could not be distinguished as a trademark use because the disputed mark lacked distinctiveness. Accordingly, the disputed mark violated the provisions of Article 11, Paragraph 1, Item 2 and Item 3 of the 2001 Chinese Trademark Law.

Meanwhile, the Beijing High Court made a final judgement on an administrative trademark invalidation dispute against JD.com and the CNIPA. The mark involved is the “618 Carnival in Chinese” trademarks in class 35 for “advertisement and sales for others,” which the court found the trademarks to be deceptive because the combination of “618” and “carnival in Chinese” used on the approved services would mislead the relevant public on the content and quality of the services provided. Moreover, the court noted that none of the Chinese holidays is a “carnival.” The disputed mark “618 Carnival in Chinese” would be seen as promotional slogan when used on the approved services, which lacked distinctiveness as a trademark. The evidence submitted was insufficient to prove that the disputed mark has established a stable association with JD.com as a distinguishable trademark when used on the approved services. Accordingly, the disputed mark violated the provisions of Article 11, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the 2001 Chinese Trademark Law. The first instance decision is affirmed.

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