The Supreme Court's Retrial Ruling Affirmed the Distinctiveness of C&S Paper’s Logo Mark

In the administrative litigation regarding the invalidation of the device mark No. 8262105 of C&S Paper Co., Ltd., the Supreme Court overturned the second-instance judgment, ultimately affirming the mark's distinctiveness and clarifying the core principles for determining inherent distinctiveness in marks.

Basic facts

The retrial applicant, C&S Paper Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "C&S Paper"), owns the mark No. 8262105 for logo with colour claim. This mark consists of a rectangular, tripartite symmetrical colour block logo, with the central and side areas filled with different colours. It was approved for registration on 7 May 2011 in respect of designated goods such as "paper handkerchiefs, toilet paper" in Class 16. On 1 March 2021, Guangxi Zhongxin Paper Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Zhongxin Company") filed a petition for invalidation with the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), arguing that the mark lacked distinctiveness and monopolized public resources, among other reasons. After review, the CNIPA ruled to maintain the registration of the disputed mark.  Zhongxin Company disagreed with this ruling and filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.

Mark No. 8262105

The first-instance court (Beijing Intellectual Property Court) dismissed Zhongxin Company's claims, holding that the disputed mark possessed distinctiveness. The second-instance court (Beijing High People's Court), however, held a contrary view, finding that the mark was more likely to be perceived by the relevant public as product packaging rather than a trademark for goods such as toilet paper, thus lacking inherent distinctiveness. Furthermore, the court found that the evidence submitted by C&S Paper was insufficient to prove that the mark had acquired distinctiveness (secondary meaning) through use. Accordingly, the second-instance court set aside the first-instance judgment and the CNIPA's ruling. Dissatisfied with the second-instance judgment, C&S Paper applied to the Supreme People's Court for a retrial. The Supreme People's Court issued a retrial judgment on 25 September 2025, setting aside the second-instance judgment, upholding the first-instance judgment, and ultimately maintaining the registration of the disputed mark.

Key Issues in Dispute

The key issue in this case was whether the disputed mark violated the provisions of Article 11(1) of the 2013 Trademark Law concerning "lack of distinctive character." In its retrial judgment, the Supreme People's Court systematically elaborated the fundamental principles that should be followed when assessing the inherent distinctiveness of a trademark. The key points of the adjudication hold significant guiding importance for future trademark authorization and confirmation practices.

1. Subject of Assessment: Limited to the "Relevant Public"

The subject for assessing distinctiveness is not the general public, but rather consumers and marketing operators related to the designated goods. For daily necessities such as toilet paper, the relevant public includes both everyday consumers and industry operators such as wholesalers and sellers. The assessment must be based on the general knowledge level and cognitive ability of this group.

2. Timing of Assessment: Based on the "Time of Application for Registration"

The Supreme Court clearly stated that the assessment of whether a mark possesses inherent distinctiveness should, in principle, be based on the factual status at the time of filing the mark. This timing examines whether the mark inherently possessed the ability to distinguish the source of goods at its "inception." Specifically, it requires a comprehensive consideration of the meaning and design of the logo itself, the general knowledge level and cognitive ability of the relevant public at that time, and the actual usage practices in the industry of the designated goods or services, among other factors. The use of the mark after its registration, or whether the manner of use is standardized, should not be used retroactively to influence the judgment of its inherent distinctiveness, unless there is evidence proving that the logo had become a generic term by the time of registration.

3. Standards of Assessment: Holistic Approach + Consideration of Product Attributes

• Principle of Holistic Judgment: A mark should not be examined in a fragmented manner by focusing on isolated elements, but must be assessed based on its overall composition. As long as the mark, taken as a whole, enables the relevant public to associate it with the source of the goods, it shall be recognized as possessing distinctive character.
• Principle of Degree of Connection to Goods: The degree of connection between the mark and the designated goods is crucial. The lower the degree of connection, the stronger the distinctiveness, and vice versa. In this case, the "tripartite symmetrical graphic" of the disputed mark and its specified colour combination were neither common packaging forms for goods such as "paper handkerchiefs, toilet paper," nor did they directly describe the quality, main raw materials, or other characteristics of the goods. Possessing a certain level of design elements and originality, the mark had a low degree of connection with the goods themselves, and thus possessed inherent distinctiveness.

4. Distinguishing Categories: The Legal Boundary between Inherent Distinctiveness and Actual Use

The core breakthrough in this retrial lies in strictly distinguishing between the assessment of "inherent distinctiveness" and the review of "actual use of the mark." The Supreme Court emphasized that how a mark is actually used in the market, whether it is used at all, or even whether its use is standardized, falls within the regulatory scope of the Trademark Law's provisions concerning trademark use management or cancellation systems (such as cancellation due to "non-use for three consecutive years"). The fact that a mark owner uses a registered mark as product packaging cannot be used to negate the intrinsic, inherent distinctiveness of the logo at the time of filing. The second-instance court's incorporation of the actual manner of use into the review of inherent distinctiveness was identified by the Supreme Court as an error in the application of law.

Brief Comments

The C&S mark retrial case provides clear adjudication guidance for judicial practice by clarifying the subject, timing, standards, and legal application boundaries for assessing trademark distinctiveness. For enterprises, this case highlights the importance of prioritizing uniqueness in logo design during the trademark application stage and underscores the need to distinguish between different legal recourse paths for rights maintenance. For judicial authorities, the principles established in this case – namely the "application date benchmark," "relevant public perception," and "holistic judgment principle" – will effectively unify the adjudication standards for similar cases, thereby reinforcing the certainty and predictability of trademark protection.