With over 200 dedicated professionals, Beijing East IP has helped a full spectrum of clients – from startups to Fortune 500 corporations to domestic multinational companies – on their intellectual property issues in China.
Weekly China Trademark News Updates
July 27, 2022
1. The CNIPA issued the “Guidelines for Intellectual Property Rights Protection at Exhibitions”
The CNIPA issued the “Guidelines for Intellectual Property Rights Protection in Exhibitions” (the “Guidelines”) on July 20, 2022. The Guidelines consist of four chapters and twenty-two articles, which are applicable to intellectual property rights protection in various online and offline economic and technological exhibitions, trade fairs, expositions, and other activities held within the territory of China. The Guidelines also focus on intellectual property protection prior to, during, and after an exhibition.
2. The Beijing Trademark Association issued the “Research Report on the Protection of Service Trademarks in the Goods Retail Industry”
The Beijing Trademark Association issued the “Research Report on the Protection of Service Trademarks in the Goods Retail Industry” (the “Report”) on July 20, 2022. In order to solve the difficulties encountered during the protection of service marks in the goods retail industry for enterprises in China, the Report focuses on analysis and research of the practice of judicial protection and other aspects, put forward suggestions and opinions on the protection of retail services in China.
3. Traditional Chinese characters with simple designs do not constitute works of art that can be protected under the Chinese Copyright Law
BAU-FOR-MAT KUCHEN GMBH & CO. KG owns the “” mark (“Disputed Mark”) with reg. no. 12077117. Top Daily Chemicals (China) Co., Ltd. (“Top Company”) claims that the Disputed Mark infringes its prior copyright and filed a trademark invalidation against the Disputed Mark. The Beijing High Court found that the “work” involved in the prior copyright claimed by Top Company was a pattern of “Miao Jie in Chinese,” but the font of its “Miao Jie in Chinese” characters was not obviously different than the existing Chinese fonts, which was not enough to reflect a personalized expression. It is not inappropriate for the first-instance judgement to find that it lacked originality and did not constitute a work protected by the Chinese Copyright Law. Top Company’s claimed work only consisted of the two Chinese characters “Miao” and “Jie,” which was too simple to reflect the originality of the work through the meaning of the Chinese characters and did not constitute a written work. Therefore, the Beijing High Court found that Top Company’s invalidation claims could not be supported and affirmed the first instance judgement.
|Follow us on LinkedIn!
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