• Our People
  • Global Presence
  • Regions
    • Asia
    • Europe
    • Americas
  • Offices
    • Canada
      • Ottawa
      • Toronto
    • China
      • Beijing
      • Hong Kong
    • Luxembourg
    • Malaysia
    • Singapore
    • UK
      • Aberdeen
      • Birmingham
      • Cambridge
      • Edinburgh
      • Glasgow
      • London
      • Manchester
      • Oxford
  • Client liaison
    • Japan
    • Korea
  • Expertise
  • Services
    • Patents
    • Brands & Trade Marks
    • Designs
    • Litigation & Dispute Resolution
    • Commercial IP & Contracts
    • Due Diligence
    • Freedom to Operate
    • EPO Patent Oppositions
    • European Patent Validations
    • Anti-counterfeiting
    • Open Source & Third Party Code
  • Sectors
    • Energy & Environment
    • Life Sciences
    • Agritech
    • Medical Technologies
    • Chemistry
    • Transport
    • Entertainment & Creative Industries
    • Food & Drink
    • Fashion & Retail
    • Universities & Research Bodies
    • Start-ups & Spin-outs
    • Digital Transformation
      • 3D Printing
      • Artificial Intelligence
      • Blockchain
      • Data & Connectivity
      • Extended Reality
      • Industry 4.0
  • About Us
    • Working with us
    • Awards
    • Corporate & Social Responsibility
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Careers
  • Insights
    • Articles
    • News
    • Events
    • Resources
    • M&C Reacts
  • Contact Us
Marks & Clerk logo
Marks & Clerk logo
Contact Us
Language
English
Our People
Global Presence
Regions
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Americas
Offices
  • Canada
    • Ottawa
    • Toronto
  • China
    • Beijing
    • Hong Kong
  • Luxembourg
  • Malaysia
  • Singapore
  • UK
    • Aberdeen
    • Birmingham
    • Cambridge
    • Edinburgh
    • Glasgow
    • London
    • Manchester
    • Oxford
Client liaison
  • Japan
  • Korea
Expertise
Services
  • Patents
  • Brands & Trade Marks
  • Designs
  • Litigation & Dispute Resolution
  • Commercial IP & Contracts
  • Due Diligence
  • Freedom to Operate
  • EPO Patent Oppositions
  • European Patent Validations
  • Anti-counterfeiting
  • Open Source & Third Party Code
Sectors
  • Energy & Environment
  • Life Sciences
  • Agritech
  • Medical Technologies
  • Chemistry
  • Transport
  • Entertainment & Creative Industries
  • Food & Drink
  • Fashion & Retail
  • Universities & Research Bodies
  • Start-ups & Spin-outs
  • Digital Transformation
    • 3D Printing
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • Blockchain
    • Data & Connectivity
    • Extended Reality
    • Industry 4.0
About Us
  • Working with us
  • Awards
  • Corporate & Social Responsibility
  • Diversity & Inclusion
  • Careers
Insights
  • Articles
  • News
  • Events
  • Resources
  • M&C Reacts

5-Year limitation no barrier to invalidation of China trade mark registrations obtained in bad faith

20 November 2019
Print
Share
There has been a welcome development in the battle against trade mark squatters in China.  In a recent case, the Beijing Higher People’s Court has cast doubt on the ability of owners of improperly registered marks to rely on the 5-year limitation on invalidation.
 
China operates on the “first-to-file” principle.  Applicants do not need to provide evidence of use or an intention to use at the time of filing. The system is relatively easy for squatters to subvert and to plagiarise, imitate and pre-emptively register marks that belong to other parties.  The squatting problem is fairly endemic.
 
Previously, a registered mark could be invalidated on relative grounds within a period of 5 years from its registration date (there are rare exceptions in the context of “well-known” marks). Invalidation on absolute grounds is not subject to the 5-year limitation.
 
In a recent administrative case, Bobdog (China) Children's Products Co., Ltd. vs TRAB, that concerned the invalidation of registration no. 3423370 "BABOBOG & device" of Quanzhou Bobdog Children's Products Co., Ltd., the Beijing Higher People’s Court  indicated that the 5 years limitation did not apply if the registration at issue was acquired by improper means.
 
Facts of the case
 
Fujian Jinjiang Wan Tai Sheng Footwear & Clothing Co., Ltd. registered the mark at issue in 2004. In 2015, it was assigned to Quanzhou Bobdog Children's Products Co., Ltd. (Quanzhou Bobdog). Bobdog (China) Children's Products Co., Ltd. (Bobdog China) and its related company owned prior registrations for a series of Bobdog marks in English and Chinese in China. It applied to invalidate the registration owned by Quanzhou Bobdog.  At first instance, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) dismissed the invalidation claim based on relative grounds because the 5-year limitation had expired.  The TRAB also found against invalidation on absolute grounds.
 
Bobdog China appealed the case to the Beijing IP Court. The IP Court noted that Wai Tai Seng (the original applicant) had applied to register more than 200 marks. Apart from the mark at issue, it had applied to register a number of marks identical or similar to other parties’ earlier marks. Meanwhile, Quanzhou Bobdog had applied for marks similar to Bobdog China’s marks and other parties’ famous marks and failed to provide a reasonable explanation for filing these applications or for its acquisition of the mark at issue in this case. Further, Wan Sheng Tai had sold some of its marks through a trademark transaction platform.  The Court concluded that the mark at issue was filed without any intention to use and such behaviour constituted “acquiring the registration through other improper means”.  The IP Court decided to cancel the registration.
 
Quanzhou Bobdog appealed the decision to the Beijing Higher People’s Court  alleging that it had an intention to use the mark at issue, and indeed had used it, and that the invalidation was time barred because of expiry of the 5-year limitation.
 
The Higher Court held that the 5-year limitation did not apply if the mark at issue was acquired by improper means. It also found that the subsequent use of the mark by Quanzhou Bobdog did not confer on Wan Sheng Tai an intention to use or justify the original improper registration of the mark.
 
While the case was decided upon it particular facts, the decision suggests that if it is shown that a mark was originally improperly registered, then the Courts might find that the registrant cannot hide behind the 5 year limitation on invalidation.  It remains to be see how widely this principle will be applied in future, but it is another step in the direction of supporting invalidation of bad faith filings beyond the 5 year limitation.
Next Story
  • “All Change! All Change!” For WIPO Standard ST. 26
  • Overcoming hurdles when it comes to marketing activity for the Birmingham Commonwealth Games
  • Post-Brexit UK (and EU) AFA recordal process
  • MERCURY sues its former franchisee for Trade Mark Infringement
  • China: Filing bad-faith trade mark applications alone may constitute unfair competition
More insights

Latest Insights

Article
- 19 August 2022

Net Zero – 10,000 days to go

As of this week, it is 10,000 days until the start of 2050, which is when the vast majority of the world is aiming to arrive at net zero. Much progress has taken place around the world and in this article we will explore the journey being undertaken on the road to net zero in critical materials and alternative fuels.
Read more
What makes a good IP solicitor?
Article
- 15 August 2022

What makes a good intellectual property solicitor?

A vital value of most UT Companies is their IP in terms of patents, trademarks etc. Sometimes the IP comes under attack from competitors or other companies, which is where an Intellectual Property Solicitor comes in. But how do they work, and what is the difference between a Property Solicitor and a Patent Attorney?
Read more
Article
- 12 August 2022

Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the Agritech space

The European Patent Office (EPO) has seen a remarkable increase in the number of AI patent filings in the Agritech sector in recent years. In this article we highlight the growth from the year 2000 until 2019.
Read more
Marks & Clerk logo (white)
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Notice
  • Cookies
  • Legal Notices
  • Lexology
  • Mondaq