Our company, Beijing Fineland Intellectual Property Agency Co., Ltd. is entrusted by the client, in accordance with the relevant provisions of Article 33 of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China, to file an opposition against the trademark “” No. 47589105 in class 27, which was preliminarily approved by China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) on November 27, 2020 and published on the Trademark Gazette No. 1721. The name of trademark applicant is Quanzhou Yongchun Xinmengyi Trade Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as opposee). In the end, the CNIPA rejected the trademark registration and Fineland IP represented the client to successfully oppose and defend its rights.

The trademark comparison chart is as follows:

Case Review

The “TIIPII” trademark is a brand originally created and used by the opponent for a long time, and has established a high reputation and influence in China long before the opposed trademark was applied for registration. The opposed trademark and the opponent’s trademark “” registered in the European Union choose the same English letter design and are designated to be used on similar goods, which refers to “unfair means be used to preemptively register the trademark of some reputation another person has used”. According to the provisions of Article 32 and Article 30 of the Trademark Law, the opposed trademark shall not be approved for registration.  

The opposee, as a trademark squatter, not only preemptively registered the opposed trademark, but also applied for registration of trademarks copying and plagiarizing others’ well-known brands in different classes, with obvious subjective malice of “brand name” and “free-riding”. The opposee’s act of grabbing other people’s trademarks squeezed the high-quality trademark resources of legitimate operators, violated the basic social morality and the principle of honesty and credibility, objectively caused damage to the order of China's trademark registration, and caused damage to the specific civil rights and interests of others, resulting in adverse effects. Therefore, according to the provisions of Article 7, Paragraph 1 (7) of Article 10, Paragraph 1 (8) of Article 10 and Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Trademark Law, the application for registration of the opposed trademark shall not be approved.

The opponent’s “TIIPII” series of brand trademarks have been promoted by the opponent for a long time, and the opposee’s act of registering the opposed trademark on the premise of fully knowing the opponent’s “TIIPII” series of brand trademarks is a serious violation of Paragraph 2 of Article 15 of the Trademark Law, and the opposed trademark shall not be approved for registration.  

According to the provisions of Article 4, Article 7, Article 10, Article 15, Article 32, Article 30, Article 44 of the Trademark Law and other relevant laws and regulations, the opponent requests the CNIPA to revoke the registration of opposee’s trademark “” No. 47589105 in accordance with the law and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the opponent.

As the analysis of Fineland IP’s lawyers was justified, the CNIPA finally decided, in accordance with Article 7, Article 30 and Article 35 of the Trademark Law, that the opposed trademark would not be registered.