Weekly China Trademark News Updates

March 15, 2022

1. The Supreme People’s Court Annual Report – 541,000 First Instance IP Cases

On March 8, 2022, President of the Supreme People’s Court Qiang Zhou reported in the work of the Supreme People’s Court at the National People’s Congress that, in 2021, courts nationwide concluded 541,000 first instance intellectual property cases. The people’s courts have strengthened the protection of intellectual property rights through various measures, including promulgating judicial interpretations on punitive damages for intellectual property rights, awarding punitive damages to infringers in 895 cases. Applying the behavior preservation system in accordance with the law, preventing further damages, and support reasonable expenses claim against abusers, saying “no” to malicious litigation that may hindering innovation, etc.

2. The “Champagne” trademark was recognized as a well-known trademark

The Beijing Intellectual Property Court recently released a civil first-instance case for infringement of the trademark “Champagne in Chinese.” The Comité Interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne is the owner of the “Champagne in Chinese” geographical indication and the “Champagne” geographical indication. The Comité Interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne sued Guangzhou Xuelei Cosmetics Co., Ltd. and Beijing Yalishadi Cosmetics Co., Ltd. (“defendants”) for trademark infringement by claiming that defendants copied its well-known trademark and diluted the association between wine products and its well-known trademarks by labeling “Champagne Life” and “Champagne Life in Chinese” on perfume products. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court found that the trademarks owned by the Comité Interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne constituted well-known trademarks on wine products after its long-term use. Guangzhou Xuelei Cosmetics Co., Ltd.’s use of the accused infringing logo on the accused infringing goods had already misled the public and constituted trademark infringement. Beijing Yalishadi Cosmetics Co., Ltd. was able to rebut its liability by proving that it had obtained the accused infringing goods with authorization from Guangzhou Xuelei Cosmetics Co., Ltd. with sufficient evidence. Beijing Yalishadi Cosmetics Co., Ltd., however, cannot escape its liability to stop infringement and compensate the Comité Interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne for reasonable legal expenses.

3. The “SLAMBALL” trademark was awarded for RMB 200,000 in damages

SlamBall (Shanghai) Sports Culture Development Co., Ltd. (“SlamBall”) owns the registered trademark “SlamBall” and “SlamBall in Chinese”. SlamBall sued Shanghai Mengna Sports Culture Development Co., Ltd. (“Mengna”) for trademark infringement.

The court found that the “SlamBall” trademark was a suggestive mark, and the word SLAMBALL itself has certain distinctiveness in terms of services such as physical education and organizing sports competitions, and can distinguish specific service sources. “SlamBall in Chinese” was directly derived from the Chinese transliteration of SlamBall, and was not an existing Chinese vocabulary, which also satisfied the distinctiveness requirements for approval of trademarks under the Chinese Trademark Law. Although relevant associations’ documents or news media reports directly point SlamBall as a specific competitive sport, and even used SlamBall to refer to the sport itself, these facts alone could not draw the conclusion that “the aforementioned trademarks have obviously degraded due to their distinctiveness in subsequent use, and cannot be used to differentiate service sources.” Whether it is the said association documents, news media reports, or online Weibo publicity, almost without exception, there was a deep participation of SlamBall and its management, which direct point SlamBall (as the sport) to SlamBall. Therefore, the relevant public could still clearly perceive the direct connection between the sport and the company. On the other hand, Mengna did not submit sufficient evidence to prove that the term “SlamBall in Chinese” was a legal or conventional generic name. Mengna used the words “SlamBall in Chinese” in sports venue, in introduction of the origin of the SlamBall sport, on WeChat public account, etc., which was highly similar with SlamBall’s portion and was likely to cause the relevant public to mistaken that Mengna was either authorized by SlamBall and had business cooperation with SlamBall. SlamBall’s registered trademarks SlamBall and SlamBall in Chinese had established a stable correspondence and can be recognized as similar trademarks interchangeably. In its judgement, the court ordered Mengna to immediately stop infringement, publish an announcement to eliminate its negative effect on SlamBall, and compensate SlamBall for economic loss and legal costs of RMB 200,000 (USD 31,366).

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