To boost the intellectual property protection at the very source, improve the quality and efficiency of trademark examination, and create a clean and upright trademark registration environment and a fair competition market order, the CNIPA released, on April 26, 2025, the top 10 typical trademark opposition and review cases of 2024.
1. "L'OIE DES LANDES" Trademark Opposition Case No. 70283061.
【Basic Facts】
The opponent: French National Agency for Product Origin and
Quality
The opposed: A Commerce (Shanghai) Co., Ltd
The main reason of the opponent: the registration of the opposed trademark violates the provisions of Article 10.1(7) and Article 16.1(1) of the Trademark Law.
Upon examination, the Trademark Office concluded that the opposed trademark was to be used in respect of goods such as meat, fish (non-live), cooked meat can. The evidence from the opponent proves that "VOLAILLES DES LAN-DES" (LANDE poultry is a geographical indication for French meat and poultry products. "LANDES" is the French place name Landes, which is a world-famous producer of duck and foie gras. The Langde goose is a world-famous breed of high-quality meat goose, which has been widely publicized by many domestic media and has been known to the relevant sector of the public in China. The French meaning of the opposed trademark is "Landese", which is similar to the above-mentioned French geographical indication in meaning. The opposed party is not from the above-mentioned region, and the registered use of the opposed trademark on meat and other goods is easy to mislead the public, and when used on other designated goods, it is easy for consumers to misidentify the product variety and place of origin. Under Articles 10.1(7) and 16.1(1) of the Trademark Law, the opposed trademark shall not be registered.
【Significance】
This is a typical case of applying Article 16.1(1) of the Trademark Law to provide equal protection to a foreign geographical indication, demonstrating the firm resolve of the trademark authority to create a sound business environment, crack down on malicious clinging to the reputation or good will of foreign geographical indications and misleading the public, and maintain an honest, healthy and orderly trademark registration order.
2. "Apollo" Trademark Opposition Case No. 59554235
【Basic Facts】
The opponent: A smart technology company
The opposed: A technology company
The main reason of the opponent was the opposed trademark and the opponent's prior registered trademark constitute similar trademarks used in respect of similar goods, which violates the provisions of Article 30 of the Trademark Law.
Upon examination, the Trademark Office concluded that the opposed trademark "Apollo" was to be used in respect of cartoons and semiconductor goods in Class 9. The opponent cited the previously registered trademark "APOLLO AIR" No. 56097092 and other trademarks approved to use in respect of goods such as cartoons, semiconductors and electronic chips in Class 9. The "AIR" in the cited trademark is a word commonly used to describe the characteristics of projects in related industries, with weak distinctiveness. The opposed trademark has a similar pronunciation and corresponding meaning to the English "APOLLO" in the main part of the cited trademark, and the relevant goods are basically the same in terms of function, use, sales place and sales channel, which constitute similar trademarks used in respect of similar goods. The registration and use of the opposed trademark is likely to cause confusion and misidentification among consumers. The opposed trademark shall not be registered.
【Significance】
In the protection of intellectual property in the field of emerging technologies, the trademark examination work is closely integrated with the trends of development of the industry, not only with focus on the standards for determining trademark similarity in the traditional sense, but also with full consideration taken of the special technical connotation and market influence of trademarks in the field of emerging technologies, so as to build a solid legal barrier for the sake of enterprises in their innovation efforts and help industries of new quality productivity to deliver high-quality and sustainable developments.
3. "Taihang Quancheng" Trademark Opposition Case No. 71344960
【Basic Facts】
The Opponent: A daily newspaper
The Opposed: An agricultural company
The main reason of the opponent was the application for registration of the opposed trademark violates the provisions of Article 10.1(7) of the Trademark Law. The objected party fails to make a reply within the prescribed time limit.
Upon examination, the Trademark Office concluded that the opposed trademark was to be used in respect of goods such as mineral water (beverages). "Taihang Quancheng" (meaning "spring city in the Taihang Mountain in Chinese) is a city brand created by Xingtai City based on its unique history, culture and natural resources. After extensive publicity and promotion by the Xingtai municipal government and the opponent, it acquired certain popularity. The opposed trademark is identical with the words of the brand of the city, and the opposed party is also based in Xingtai City, and the opposed trademark is likely to mislead the relevant sector of the public into believing that the trademark has been authorized by the Xingtai municipal government, and then misidentify the quality, reputation and other characteristics of the goods, which violates Article 10.1(7) of the Trademark Law. The opposed trademark shall not be registered.
【Significance】
This is a typical case accurately applying the "deceptive" clauses to effectively protect the city's brand. Article 10.1(7) of the Trademark Law is an absolute cause clause, and the application for registration that is deceptive in terms of the characteristics of the goods or services and the place of origin falls within the scope of regulation under the provision. A city brand possesses distinctive quality characteristics. The case is analyzed from the perspective of quality characteristics, and correctly applies Article 10.1(7) of the Trademark Law, which effectively regulates the bad faith registration of city brands and the harm to the public interests, and provides a solid legal guarantee for the construction of city brands.
(To Be Continued)
Source: originally published on the official websites of Chinese Trademark Office and China IP News
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.
