Weekly China Trademark News Updates

November 21, 2023

1. Tsingtao Beer about to secure a trademark registration as courts reversed CNIPA decision

Tsingtao Brewery Co., Ltd. (“Tsingtao Brewery”) filed an application for the mark “” on “Beer, Water [beverage], Non-alcoholic preparations for making beverages,” etc. in class 32 in January 2021.  The CNIPA rejected this application holding that the sign should not be registered or used as a trademark because the word “TSINGTAO” is a city’s name in China whereas the mark as a whole does not form a meaning distinguishable from the city’s name.

Tsingtao Brewery appealed the CNIPA decision to the court, and the Beijing IP Court held that:

The term “TSINGTAO” in the Disputed Trademark is usually translated as “Qingdao,” which is a city’s name in China. But at the same time, it is also an important part of Tsingtao Brewery’s trade name, trademark, and other signs used in commercial operations. Considering the evidence and Tsingtao Brewery’s prior registration of series trademarks of “Tsingtao Beer in Chinese & TSINGTAO”, it can be concluded that, when the Disputed Mark is used for beer and other designated goods, the relevant public can establish a relationship with the series of products produced by Tsingtao Brewery by using the word “TSINGTAO”. The Disputed Mark also has other elements and artistic design, and the whole mark has other meanings which are different from the name of the place. Therefore, the Disputed Mark on the designated goods does not constitute as those marks identical with to a city’s name under Article 10(2) of the Trademark Law.

The CNIPA was dissatisfied and filed a second instance to Beijing High Court, which affirmed the lower court’s judgment.

The Disputed Mark has been published for preliminary approval and may finally secure registration after three years since its application date.

2. Courts invalidated a squatter of HERSHEY based on both prior right and good faith principle

A Chinese company registered “” (“Disputed Mark”) on “Chocolate; Confectionery; Cocoa”, etc. in class 30 in 2020. The Hershey Company filed an invalidation action against the Disputed Mark and prevailed.  The CNIPA supported Hershey’s both claims on prior trademarks “Hershey’s” and the absolute grounds of good faith principle.

The registrant of the Disputed Mark appealed the CNIPA decision to the Beijing IP Court, but it appeal was dismissed.  It further appealed to the Beijing High Court, and the court found in the second instance judgment that:

In this case, the Disputed Mark is similar to the cited trademarks “HERSHEY’S” in terms of letter composition, pronunciation, and overall visual effect. Hershey’s evidence can prove that its “HERSHEY’S” marks enjoy a high reputation in “chocolate, candy” and other goods. If the Disputed Mark and the cited marks were used together on identical or similar goods, it would easily cause confusion and misidentification of the source of the goods to the relevant public. Therefore, the Disputed Mark and the cited marks constituted similar marks used on identical or similar goods. This court affirmed the lower court’s judgment.

Regarding “other improper means to obtain registration,” it refers to other improper means than deception that disrupt the order of trademark registration, harm the public interest, improperly use public resources, or other ways to seek improper interests. In this case, after obtaining  several trademarks similar to Hershey’s prior trademarks such as “HEOSHIV’S” and “Hershey’s in Chinese Mei Ke” through assignment, the Disputed Mark’s registrant applied for registration of 16 marks similar to Hershey’s prior trademarks in class 29 and class 30, such as “Hershey’s Companion in Chinese,” “Hershey’s Heritage in Chinese,” “Wonderful Hershey’s in Chinese,” etc., as well as “Roche Family in Chinese,” “FELEREO” and other trademarks that are similar to others’ prior trademarks. The Disputed Mark’s registrant failed to provide a reasonable explanation, which showed that it has the intention of copying and imitating famous trademarks of others and taking advantage of other’s goodwill. The number of trademarks obtained also exceeded normal production and business needs, which disturbed the normal order of trademark registration management, and violated the principle of good faith. Such behavior was detrimental to the fair competition order of the market. Therefore, the Disputed Mark’s registration constituted as “obtaining registration by other improper means” under Article 44(1) of the 2013 Trademark Law. This court affirmed the lower court’s findings regarding this issue.

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