China: Analysis of Typical Trademark Opposition and Review Cases for 2024
Published 30 June 2025
Sarah Xuan
To further enhance the role of trademark opposition and review procedures in combating malicious registration, protecting prior rights, and safeguarding public interests, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) Trademark Office released the “Typical Trademark Opposition and Review Cases of 2024” on May 16, 2025. This release aims to demonstrate examination orientations through individual cases, fulfill the institutional function of “interpreting law through cases,” establish normative boundaries for trademark registration conduct, and guide the public in the correct understanding and use of the trademark system.Below are selected representative cases from this year, along with their analyses:
1. Opposition Case of the “L'OIE DES LANDES” Trademark: Effective Protection of Foreign Geographical Indications Case Overview: The opponent, the French National Institute of Origin and Quality (INAO), filed an opposition against a Shanghai-based trading company's application to register the trademark “L'OIE DES LANDES” (literally translated as “Goose of Landes”), alleging that the mark was misleading and violated relevant provisions of the Trademark Law. Landes is a well-known region in France for foie gras production, and “VOLAILLES DES LANDES” is a registered geographical indication for poultry products from that region. Disputed Focus: Can a company that is not a producer from the geographical region in question use geographical indication-related terminology in its trademark, potentially misleading consumers and damaging the reputation of the indication? Decision: The Trademark Office held that the trademark was likely to mislead consumers into believing that the products originated from France’s Landes region and could cause confusion with its reputation. In accordance with Article 10(1)(7) and Article 16(1) of the Trademark Law, the application was rejected. Typical Significance: This case accurately applied the geographical indication provisions, curbed the practice of leveraging well-known foreign regional brands, reflected China’s principle of equal protection for international rights within its IP system, and supported the construction of an international business environment.
2. Opposition Case of the “阿波罗 (Apollo)” Trademark: Strengthening Brand Recognition in the Tech Industry Case Overview: A Beijing-based smart technology company opposed the registration of the trademark “阿波罗 (Apollo)” by a Wuxi-based company, arguing that it was similar to its existing mark “APOLLO AIR.” Both marks were used in Class 9 for goods such as animated cartoons, semiconductors, and chips. Disputed Focus: Do “Apollo” and “APOLLO AIR” constitute visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity? Is the term “AIR” distinctive enough to differentiate the two? Decision: The examiner determined that “APOLLO” was the distinctive portion of the cited trademark, while “AIR” lacked distinctiveness. Given the overlap in product categories and similar distribution channels, confusion was likely. Therefore, registration was denied. Typical Significance: The case demonstrates strengthened protection for innovative outcomes in the high-tech sector, emphasizing comprehensive brand recognition in technical contexts and warning against free-riding on well-known tech brands.
3. Opposition Case of the “太行泉城” Trademark: Legal Safeguards for Public Brands Case Overview: “太行泉城 (Taihang Spring City)” is a city branding effort by Xingtai, Hebei. An agricultural development company attempted to register it as a trademark for products like mineral water. A local news agency filed an opposition. Disputed Focus: Does the company have the right to represent an official city brand? Would the mark mislead the public into believing it was endorsed by the government? Decision: The Trademark Office concluded that the registration could mislead the public into believing the product was government-authorized, thereby causing misunderstanding about quality and reputation. This was deemed deceptive under Article 10(1)(7) of the Trademark Law and was rejected. Typical Significance: The case strengthens protections for city brands, prevents the privatization of public resources, and provides institutional support for local government brand development and regional image management.
4. Opposition Case of the “观淮” Trademark: Legal Recognition of Government New Media Names Case Overview: “观淮 (Guanhuai)” is the name of a news app run by a mainstream media outlet in a certain city, with substantial prior promotion. However, a group in Anhui applied to register “观淮” as a trademark for services including news publication. Disputed Focus: Can prior use prevent others from preemptively registering the name? Are news app names protected under the Trademark Law? Decision: The examiner recognized that “观淮” had gained notable recognition, and that the applicant acted in bad faith. The registration violated Article 32 of the Trademark Law and was denied. Typical Significance: As public communication platforms, government and media apps have high social value. This case marks the first systematic recognition that new media brands can enjoy trademark protection, providing legal backing for digital government development.
5. Opposition Case of the “晓芳窑” Trademark: Cross-Class Protection for Traditional Cultural Brands Case Overview: “晓芳窑 (Xiaofang Kiln)” is a well-known brand of antique-style porcelain. Its founder has long engaged in ceramics research and promotion, earning wide influence. An opposition was filed against another party’s attempt to register a service mark with the same name. Disputed Focus: Are tea sets and ceramics-making services similar classes of goods/services? Can a well-known prior mark extend its protection scope? Decision: The Trademark Office ruled that the marks were similar and involved similar goods/services, likely to cause confusion among consumers. The application was rejected. Typical Significance: By moderately extending the scope beyond the “Classification Table of Similar Goods and Services,” the case affords broader protection to cultural brands, serving as a model for IP protection of intangible cultural heritage.
6. Appeal case of the “BRTV北京时间” Trademark: Flexible Assessment of Media Brand Distinctiveness Case Overview: A Beijing TV station applied to register “BRTV北京时间,” which was initially rejected on the grounds that “Beijing” is a geographical name and lacks distinctiveness. The applicant appealed, arguing that the mark had acquired high public recognition and was uniquely associated with the applicant. Disputed Focus: Can trademarks containing place names be registered? Has “BRTV北京时间” acquired secondary meaning and distinctiveness through use? Decision: After reviewing promotional materials, media coverage, and usage history, the examiner concluded that the mark had established a unique association with the applicant and possessed sufficient distinctiveness. Preliminary approval was granted. Typical Significance: This case reflects a pragmatic and flexible approach to assessing distinctiveness. Media brands, due to their public communication function, carry unique cultural and political weight. The decision offers guidance on how to register place-name-inclusive trademarks that have acquired distinctiveness.
7. Invalidation Case of a Graphic Trademark: Integrated Protection of Cultural Heritage and Copyright Case Overview: The applicant, a cultural tourism company, holds the copyright to an artistic work incorporating elements from a famous heritage site. A Shanghai-based industrial company registered a graphic trademark highly similar to the copyrighted work. The applicant sought invalidation, citing copyright infringement and bad faith. Disputed Focus: Did the trademark infringe on copyright? Was the registration obtained through improper means? Decision: The review committee found that the registrant had systematically applied for multiple trademarks related to scenic area names, indicating an intent to copy and free-ride. This constituted “other improper means” under Article 44 of the Trademark Law. The trademark was invalidated. Typical Significance: The case affirms that cultural heritage and derivative works can receive copyright protection, enhances scrutiny of the legitimacy of registration purposes, and curbs commercial exploitation of public cultural resources. It exemplifies the integration of cultural and IP legal protection.
8. Invalidation Case of the “童年时光” Trademark: Preventing Risks of Bad-Faith Registration in Distribution Relationships Case Overview: The applicant, ChildLife, a well-known U.S. children’s nutrition brand, discovered that its former second-tier distributor in Nanjing had registered “童年时光” and related Chinese/transliterated trademarks without authorization during the cooperation period. Disputed Focus: Does a distributor have the right to file for trademark registration? Does this constitute bad-faith registration? Decision: The review committee found that the registrant exploited the partnership to register the brand, and subsequent usage involved deceptive misappropriation. The registration was invalidated as obtained through improper means. Typical Significance: This case strongly opposes the abuse of business relationships for seizing brand assets, clarifies that distributor roles do not confer registration rights, and reinforces protection for foreign brands in China, supporting fair market order.
9. Invalidation Case of the “兰天博科” Trademark: Clarifying Trademark Ownership Post Corporate Liquidation Case Overview: Mr. Chen Wei and Mr. Chen Shao were both shareholders and legal representatives of a dissolved company. After dissolution, Mr. Chen Shao registered “兰天博科” in his own name. Mr. Chen Wei filed for invalidation, claiming the mark was a corporate asset and registration breached good faith. Disputed Focus: Was the trademark a company asset? Did the registrant have shareholder authorization? Decision: The committee confirmed that most shareholders had agreed to transfer IP assets to Mr. Chen Shao prior to registration. The application was not in breach of Article 15 of the Trademark Law. The opposing party's claims, filed after dissolution without majority support, were not upheld. Typical Significance: This case avoided mechanical application of past precedents, instead making a comprehensive, evidence-based determination. It serves as a practical guide for post-dissolution allocation of trademark assets.
10. Invalidation Case of the “CVF and Device” Trademark: Exploring Cross-Class Protection for Agricultural Fair Brands Case Overview: The organizing committee of the China (Shouguang) International Vegetable Expo alleged that the disputed “CVF and Device” trademark copied its emblem “CVF SHOUGUANG” and was applied to goods/services related to agricultural exhibitions, likely causing confusion. Disputed Focus: Do the marks constitute confusing similarity? Can trademark protection extend across classes? Decision: The committee found the disputed mark highly similar in composition, lettering, and meaning to the cited mark and used in closely related fields. It ruled that confusion was likely and invalidated the mark under Article 30 of the Trademark Law. Typical Significance: This case reflects the trend of expanding cross-class protection, especially for widely recognized agricultural fair marks. It helps regulate agricultural brand behavior and promote rural economic development.
Conclusion The 2024 typical cases of trademark opposition and review cover a broad spectrum and diverse types, including geographical indications, media names, city brands, cultural creations, business cooperation, government new media, and exhibition logos. These cases collectively demonstrate the following trends: 1) Shift from Formal to Substantive Examination: Increased focus on actual trademark usage, market perception, and legitimacy of registration intent.2) Precision in Combating Malicious Registration: Combines behavioral patterns with subjective intent for “zero tolerance” enforcement.3) Diversification of Protected Entities: Extends beyond corporate trademarks to include government platforms, fair brands, and intangible cultural assets.4) Flexible Application of Distinctiveness Criteria: Especially for marks involving place names or industry-generic terms, highlighting unique linkage between mark and applicant. As the new round of Trademark Law amendments progresses, the guiding significance of such cases will continue to expand, contributing to the refinement of trademark authorization mechanisms, enhanced public interest protection, and the modernization of trademark governance systems.
1. Opposition Case of the “L'OIE DES LANDES” Trademark: Effective Protection of Foreign Geographical Indications Case Overview: The opponent, the French National Institute of Origin and Quality (INAO), filed an opposition against a Shanghai-based trading company's application to register the trademark “L'OIE DES LANDES” (literally translated as “Goose of Landes”), alleging that the mark was misleading and violated relevant provisions of the Trademark Law. Landes is a well-known region in France for foie gras production, and “VOLAILLES DES LANDES” is a registered geographical indication for poultry products from that region. Disputed Focus: Can a company that is not a producer from the geographical region in question use geographical indication-related terminology in its trademark, potentially misleading consumers and damaging the reputation of the indication? Decision: The Trademark Office held that the trademark was likely to mislead consumers into believing that the products originated from France’s Landes region and could cause confusion with its reputation. In accordance with Article 10(1)(7) and Article 16(1) of the Trademark Law, the application was rejected. Typical Significance: This case accurately applied the geographical indication provisions, curbed the practice of leveraging well-known foreign regional brands, reflected China’s principle of equal protection for international rights within its IP system, and supported the construction of an international business environment.
2. Opposition Case of the “阿波罗 (Apollo)” Trademark: Strengthening Brand Recognition in the Tech Industry Case Overview: A Beijing-based smart technology company opposed the registration of the trademark “阿波罗 (Apollo)” by a Wuxi-based company, arguing that it was similar to its existing mark “APOLLO AIR.” Both marks were used in Class 9 for goods such as animated cartoons, semiconductors, and chips. Disputed Focus: Do “Apollo” and “APOLLO AIR” constitute visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarity? Is the term “AIR” distinctive enough to differentiate the two? Decision: The examiner determined that “APOLLO” was the distinctive portion of the cited trademark, while “AIR” lacked distinctiveness. Given the overlap in product categories and similar distribution channels, confusion was likely. Therefore, registration was denied. Typical Significance: The case demonstrates strengthened protection for innovative outcomes in the high-tech sector, emphasizing comprehensive brand recognition in technical contexts and warning against free-riding on well-known tech brands.
3. Opposition Case of the “太行泉城” Trademark: Legal Safeguards for Public Brands Case Overview: “太行泉城 (Taihang Spring City)” is a city branding effort by Xingtai, Hebei. An agricultural development company attempted to register it as a trademark for products like mineral water. A local news agency filed an opposition. Disputed Focus: Does the company have the right to represent an official city brand? Would the mark mislead the public into believing it was endorsed by the government? Decision: The Trademark Office concluded that the registration could mislead the public into believing the product was government-authorized, thereby causing misunderstanding about quality and reputation. This was deemed deceptive under Article 10(1)(7) of the Trademark Law and was rejected. Typical Significance: The case strengthens protections for city brands, prevents the privatization of public resources, and provides institutional support for local government brand development and regional image management.
4. Opposition Case of the “观淮” Trademark: Legal Recognition of Government New Media Names Case Overview: “观淮 (Guanhuai)” is the name of a news app run by a mainstream media outlet in a certain city, with substantial prior promotion. However, a group in Anhui applied to register “观淮” as a trademark for services including news publication. Disputed Focus: Can prior use prevent others from preemptively registering the name? Are news app names protected under the Trademark Law? Decision: The examiner recognized that “观淮” had gained notable recognition, and that the applicant acted in bad faith. The registration violated Article 32 of the Trademark Law and was denied. Typical Significance: As public communication platforms, government and media apps have high social value. This case marks the first systematic recognition that new media brands can enjoy trademark protection, providing legal backing for digital government development.
5. Opposition Case of the “晓芳窑” Trademark: Cross-Class Protection for Traditional Cultural Brands Case Overview: “晓芳窑 (Xiaofang Kiln)” is a well-known brand of antique-style porcelain. Its founder has long engaged in ceramics research and promotion, earning wide influence. An opposition was filed against another party’s attempt to register a service mark with the same name. Disputed Focus: Are tea sets and ceramics-making services similar classes of goods/services? Can a well-known prior mark extend its protection scope? Decision: The Trademark Office ruled that the marks were similar and involved similar goods/services, likely to cause confusion among consumers. The application was rejected. Typical Significance: By moderately extending the scope beyond the “Classification Table of Similar Goods and Services,” the case affords broader protection to cultural brands, serving as a model for IP protection of intangible cultural heritage.
6. Appeal case of the “BRTV北京时间” Trademark: Flexible Assessment of Media Brand Distinctiveness Case Overview: A Beijing TV station applied to register “BRTV北京时间,” which was initially rejected on the grounds that “Beijing” is a geographical name and lacks distinctiveness. The applicant appealed, arguing that the mark had acquired high public recognition and was uniquely associated with the applicant. Disputed Focus: Can trademarks containing place names be registered? Has “BRTV北京时间” acquired secondary meaning and distinctiveness through use? Decision: After reviewing promotional materials, media coverage, and usage history, the examiner concluded that the mark had established a unique association with the applicant and possessed sufficient distinctiveness. Preliminary approval was granted. Typical Significance: This case reflects a pragmatic and flexible approach to assessing distinctiveness. Media brands, due to their public communication function, carry unique cultural and political weight. The decision offers guidance on how to register place-name-inclusive trademarks that have acquired distinctiveness.
7. Invalidation Case of a Graphic Trademark: Integrated Protection of Cultural Heritage and Copyright Case Overview: The applicant, a cultural tourism company, holds the copyright to an artistic work incorporating elements from a famous heritage site. A Shanghai-based industrial company registered a graphic trademark highly similar to the copyrighted work. The applicant sought invalidation, citing copyright infringement and bad faith. Disputed Focus: Did the trademark infringe on copyright? Was the registration obtained through improper means? Decision: The review committee found that the registrant had systematically applied for multiple trademarks related to scenic area names, indicating an intent to copy and free-ride. This constituted “other improper means” under Article 44 of the Trademark Law. The trademark was invalidated. Typical Significance: The case affirms that cultural heritage and derivative works can receive copyright protection, enhances scrutiny of the legitimacy of registration purposes, and curbs commercial exploitation of public cultural resources. It exemplifies the integration of cultural and IP legal protection.
8. Invalidation Case of the “童年时光” Trademark: Preventing Risks of Bad-Faith Registration in Distribution Relationships Case Overview: The applicant, ChildLife, a well-known U.S. children’s nutrition brand, discovered that its former second-tier distributor in Nanjing had registered “童年时光” and related Chinese/transliterated trademarks without authorization during the cooperation period. Disputed Focus: Does a distributor have the right to file for trademark registration? Does this constitute bad-faith registration? Decision: The review committee found that the registrant exploited the partnership to register the brand, and subsequent usage involved deceptive misappropriation. The registration was invalidated as obtained through improper means. Typical Significance: This case strongly opposes the abuse of business relationships for seizing brand assets, clarifies that distributor roles do not confer registration rights, and reinforces protection for foreign brands in China, supporting fair market order.
9. Invalidation Case of the “兰天博科” Trademark: Clarifying Trademark Ownership Post Corporate Liquidation Case Overview: Mr. Chen Wei and Mr. Chen Shao were both shareholders and legal representatives of a dissolved company. After dissolution, Mr. Chen Shao registered “兰天博科” in his own name. Mr. Chen Wei filed for invalidation, claiming the mark was a corporate asset and registration breached good faith. Disputed Focus: Was the trademark a company asset? Did the registrant have shareholder authorization? Decision: The committee confirmed that most shareholders had agreed to transfer IP assets to Mr. Chen Shao prior to registration. The application was not in breach of Article 15 of the Trademark Law. The opposing party's claims, filed after dissolution without majority support, were not upheld. Typical Significance: This case avoided mechanical application of past precedents, instead making a comprehensive, evidence-based determination. It serves as a practical guide for post-dissolution allocation of trademark assets.
10. Invalidation Case of the “CVF and Device” Trademark: Exploring Cross-Class Protection for Agricultural Fair Brands Case Overview: The organizing committee of the China (Shouguang) International Vegetable Expo alleged that the disputed “CVF and Device” trademark copied its emblem “CVF SHOUGUANG” and was applied to goods/services related to agricultural exhibitions, likely causing confusion. Disputed Focus: Do the marks constitute confusing similarity? Can trademark protection extend across classes? Decision: The committee found the disputed mark highly similar in composition, lettering, and meaning to the cited mark and used in closely related fields. It ruled that confusion was likely and invalidated the mark under Article 30 of the Trademark Law. Typical Significance: This case reflects the trend of expanding cross-class protection, especially for widely recognized agricultural fair marks. It helps regulate agricultural brand behavior and promote rural economic development.
Conclusion The 2024 typical cases of trademark opposition and review cover a broad spectrum and diverse types, including geographical indications, media names, city brands, cultural creations, business cooperation, government new media, and exhibition logos. These cases collectively demonstrate the following trends: 1) Shift from Formal to Substantive Examination: Increased focus on actual trademark usage, market perception, and legitimacy of registration intent.2) Precision in Combating Malicious Registration: Combines behavioral patterns with subjective intent for “zero tolerance” enforcement.3) Diversification of Protected Entities: Extends beyond corporate trademarks to include government platforms, fair brands, and intangible cultural assets.4) Flexible Application of Distinctiveness Criteria: Especially for marks involving place names or industry-generic terms, highlighting unique linkage between mark and applicant. As the new round of Trademark Law amendments progresses, the guiding significance of such cases will continue to expand, contributing to the refinement of trademark authorization mechanisms, enhanced public interest protection, and the modernization of trademark governance systems.