Nike Successfully Invalidated The "Swoosh & M & Design" Mark

BE
Beijing East IP Law Firm
Contributor
Beijing East IP Ltd. was founded in 2002 by Dr. GAO Lulin and a group of experienced Chinese and international attorneys to provide top quality intellectual property services in China.Together with Beijing East IP Law Firm, a registered law firm before the Justice Department of the People’s Republic of China in 2004, we offer a complete set of intellectual property services ranging from patent and trademark prosecution, litigation to other intellectual property rights protections and enforcements.
The Beijing High Court recently concluded an administrative trademark invalidation dispute between the appellant Shanghai Jingnai Apparel Co., Ltd. ("Jingnai")...
China Intellectual Property
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
Disputed Mark
Reg. No. 30399446
Cited Mark 1
Reg. No. 991722
Cited Mark 2
Reg. No. 4581865
1332132a.jpg 1332132b.jpg 1332132c.jpg

The Beijing High Court recently concluded an administrative trademark invalidation dispute between the appellant Shanghai Jingnai Apparel Co., Ltd. ("Jingnai"), the CNIPA, and Nike Innovation Co., Ltd. ("Nike"). The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the first instance judgment.

The Beijing High Court found that "clothing, shoes, socks" and other goods approved for use under the Disputed Mark and "clothing, shoes, hats" and other goods approved for use under the Cited Marks 1 and 2 fall into the same subclass according to the CNIPA Goods and Services Classification, constituted as identical or similar goods. The Disputed Mark is composed of the English letter "m" and designs, and the Cited Marks 1 and 2 are design marks. Comparing the Disputed Mark with the Cited Marks, it can be seen that the lower part of the Disputed Mark is highly similar to the design of the Cited Marks. The said marks were similar in design methods and overall visual effects, which constituted similar trademarks. In addition, the evidence submitted by Nike can prove that the Cited Marks already had a high reputation before the application date of the Disputed Mark through its publicity and use. Jingnai did not submit any evidence to prove that the Disputed Mark had formed a one-to-one relationship with the Disputed Mark through use and promotion, and was able to distinguish itself with the Cited Marks. On this basis, if the Disputed Mark and the Cited Marks 1 and 2 coexisted in the market, it would easily cause the relevant public to be confused and misunderstand, or believe that there was a certain relationship between the source of the goods. Therefore, the Disputed Mark and the Cited Marks constituted similar marks on identical or similar goods, and the registration of the Disputed Mark violated Article 30 of the Trademark Law. The original judgment was correct and shall be upheld.

Originally published 24 May 2023.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Nike Successfully Invalidated The "Swoosh & M & Design" Mark

China Intellectual Property
Contributor
Beijing East IP Ltd. was founded in 2002 by Dr. GAO Lulin and a group of experienced Chinese and international attorneys to provide top quality intellectual property services in China.Together with Beijing East IP Law Firm, a registered law firm before the Justice Department of the People’s Republic of China in 2004, we offer a complete set of intellectual property services ranging from patent and trademark prosecution, litigation to other intellectual property rights protections and enforcements.
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More