“BY THE END OF 2012, CUMULATIVE TRADEMARK APPLICATIONS IN CHINA REACHED 11.3 MILLION. THERE WERE 7.6 MILLION TRADEMARK REGISTRATIONS OF WHICH 6.4 MILLION REMAIN VALID.”
The China Trademark Office and China Trademark Review and Adjudication Board have published the Annual Development Report on China’s Trademark Strategy 2012 and made both Chinese and English versions downloadable from their websites, http://www.ctmo.gov.cn/ and http://sbj.saic.gov.cn/
The report contains detailed trademark statistics and 14 chapters. Important figures include that in 2012, 1.6 million trademark applications were accepted, 16.3 percent more than the previous year; 1.2 million trademark applications were examined,1.8 percent up; 73,000 opposition cases were decided, 28.7 percent ahead of 2011; and 52,500 trademark review cases were handled, a jump of 50 percent.
By the end of 2012, cumulative trademark applications in China reached 11.3 million. There were 7.6 million trademark registrations of which 6.4 million remain valid.
TT v TT Design
On May 15, 2013, the Intermediate Court of Kunming, Yunnan province, heard a case brought by the individual auto parts dealer Zhang Xiaoping against Audi AG, Audi (China) Enterprise Management Co, Ltd and Yunnan Liandi Auto Services Co, Ltd for trademark infringement.
In the hearing, the plaintiff argued that the defendants’ use of the trademark ‘TT’ had infringed his trademark right on:
This mark is no. 4430850 in Class 12, and the plaintiff claimed that the defendants should stop using the trademark ‘TT’, stop selling autos with the trademark ’TT’, and pay compensation to the tune of RMB500,000 ($80,800) and his expenses of RMB50,000 ($8,080). The plaintiff also claimed for recognition of his trademark as a well-known trademark in China.
The defendants argued that the plaintiff ’s trademark was a device trademark which looks like a bench or a bridge and could not be recognised as the word ‘TT’, which was confirmed by Beijing High Court’s ruling in the lawsuit on Audi AG’s appeal against the rejection of extension of the international registration No. 896488.
The defendants also argued that the plaintiff ’s trademark was in respect of auto parts, while the defendants’ mark was in respect of cars, so the goods were dissimilar.
The defendants also proved that they had used the ‘TT’ mark prior to the application date of the plaintiff ’s mark and such earlier use had achieved high fame in the Chinese market.
The key issue in this case is whether the two marks are confusingly similar and the goods on which the marks are used are similar. With the factor of the prior influential use of the defendants’ mark considered, we consider the plaintiff ’s lawsuit may not be very likely to succeed.
Author: Xiang Gao, Partner, Head of Trademark department
Peksung Intellectual Property Ltd
Beijing, China
http://www.peksung.com/
