Propiedad intelectual Formación en PI Respeto por la PI Divulgación de la PI La PI para... La PI y… La PI en… Información sobre patentes y tecnología Información sobre marcas Información sobre diseños industriales Información sobre las indicaciones geográficas Información sobre las variedades vegetales (UPOV) Leyes, tratados y sentencias de PI Recursos de PI Informes sobre PI Protección por patente Protección de las marcas Protección de diseños industriales Protección de las indicaciones geográficas Protección de las variedades vegetales (UPOV) Solución de controversias en materia de PI Soluciones operativas para las oficinas de PI Pagar por servicios de PI Negociación y toma de decisiones Cooperación para el desarrollo Apoyo a la innovación Colaboraciones público-privadas Herramientas y servicios de IA La Organización Trabajar con la OMPI Rendición de cuentas Patentes Marcas Diseños industriales Indicaciones geográficas Derecho de autor Secretos comerciales Academia de la OMPI Talleres y seminarios Observancia de la PI WIPO ALERT Sensibilizar Día Mundial de la PI Revista de la OMPI Casos prácticos y casos de éxito Novedades sobre la PI Premios de la OMPI Empresas Universidades Pueblos indígenas Judicatura Recursos genéticos, conocimientos tradicionales y expresiones culturales tradicionales Economía Financiación Activos intangibles Igualdad de género Salud mundial Cambio climático Política de competencia Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible Tecnologías de vanguardia Aplicaciones móviles Deportes Turismo PATENTSCOPE Análisis de patentes Clasificación Internacional de Patentes ARDI - Investigación para la innovación ASPI - Información especializada sobre patentes Base Mundial de Datos sobre Marcas Madrid Monitor Base de datos Artículo 6ter Express Clasificación de Niza Clasificación de Viena Base Mundial de Datos sobre Dibujos y Modelos Boletín de Dibujos y Modelos Internacionales Base de datos Hague Express Clasificación de Locarno Base de datos Lisbon Express Base Mundial de Datos sobre Marcas para indicaciones geográficas Base de datos de variedades vegetales PLUTO Base de datos GENIE Tratados administrados por la OMPI WIPO Lex: leyes, tratados y sentencias de PI Normas técnicas de la OMPI Estadísticas de PI WIPO Pearl (terminología) Publicaciones de la OMPI Perfiles nacionales sobre PI Centro de Conocimiento de la OMPI Informes de la OMPI sobre tendencias tecnológicas Índice Mundial de Innovación Informe mundial sobre la propiedad intelectual PCT - El sistema internacional de patentes ePCT Budapest - El Sistema internacional de depósito de microorganismos Madrid - El sistema internacional de marcas eMadrid Artículo 6ter (escudos de armas, banderas, emblemas de Estado) La Haya - Sistema internacional de diseños eHague Lisboa - Sistema internacional de indicaciones geográficas eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange Mediación Arbitraje Determinación de expertos Disputas sobre nombres de dominio Acceso centralizado a la búsqueda y el examen (CASE) Servicio de acceso digital (DAS) WIPO Pay Cuenta corriente en la OMPI Asambleas de la OMPI Comités permanentes Calendario de reuniones WIPO Webcast Documentos oficiales de la OMPI Agenda para el Desarrollo Asistencia técnica Instituciones de formación en PI Apoyo para COVID-19 Estrategias nacionales de PI Asesoramiento sobre políticas y legislación Centro de cooperación Centros de apoyo a la tecnología y la innovación (CATI) Transferencia de tecnología Programa de Asistencia a los Inventores (PAI) WIPO GREEN PAT-INFORMED de la OMPI Consorcio de Libros Accesibles Consorcio de la OMPI para los Creadores WIPO Translate Conversión de voz a texto Asistente de clasificación Estados miembros Observadores Director general Actividades por unidad Oficinas en el exterior Ofertas de empleo Adquisiciones Resultados y presupuesto Información financiera Supervisión
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Leyes Tratados Sentencias Consultar por jurisdicción

China

CN005-j

Atrás

Lilongfeng V. Trademark Review and Adjudication and Sanya Haitangwan Management Committee (2013) ZXZ Nos. 41, SPC

LI LONGFENG V. TRADEMARK REVIEW AND ADJUDICATION BOARD AND SANYA HAITANGWAN MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (2013) ZXZ Nos. 41, SPC

 

Cause of action: Administrative dispute over a trademark

 

Collegial panel members: Xia Junli | Yin Shaoping | Dong Xiaomin

 

 Keywords: other improper means, trademark registration

 

Relevant legal provisions: Trademark Law of the Peoples Republic of China (as amended in 2001), articles 4 and 41

 

Basic facts: In the retrial of an administrative trademark dispute between Li Longfeng and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry & Commerce (hereinafter the TRAB), in which Sanya Haitangwan Management Committee (hereinafter Haitangwan Management Committee) was the third party, the facts were as follows. On June 8, 2005, Li Longfeng had registered Trademark Nos. 4706493 Haitangwan and 4706970 Haitangwan (the disputed trademarks). Trademark No. 4706493 was for services under Class 36 of the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks, including rental of real estate and management of real estate and residence (apartments); Trademark No. 4706970 Haitangwan was for Class 43 services, spanning accommodation bureau services (hotels, boarding houses), tourist home services, hotel services and restaurant services. Under the provisions of articles 31, 41(1) and 10 of the Trademark Law of the Peoples Republic of China (as amended in 2001), Haitangwan Management Committee requested that the TRAB cancel its registration of the disputed trademarks. The TRAB, in its Decision on Trademark Dispute over Trademark No. 4706493 Haitangwan (2011) SPZ No. 13255 (hereinafter Decision No. 13255) and Decision on Trademark Dispute over Trademark No. 4706970 Haitangwan (2011) SPZ No. 12545 (hereinafter Decision No. 12545), ruled to cancel the two Haitangwan trademarks. Li Longfeng found the decisions unsatisfactory and brought administrative lawsuits against both.

 

At first instance, the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate Peoples Court overruled the TRAB and overturned Decision Nos. 13255 and 12545. Dissatisfied, the TRAB and Haitangwan Management Committee appealed.

 

 At second instance, the Beijing Higher People’s Court overruled the first instance judgment and affirmed Decision Nos. 13255 and 12545. Dissatisfied, Li Longfeng applied for permission to appeal to the Supreme People’s Court.

 

Held: On August 12, 2013, the Supreme People’s Court denied Li Longfeng permission to appeal.

 

Reasoning: The Supreme Peoples Court held that, under article 41(1) of the Trademark Law, if the registration of a trademark is obtained by fraudulent or other illegitimate means, other entities or individuals may request that the TRAB cancel that registration. To determine whether registration of the disputed trademark has been obtained by such means, the courts need to consider whether the registration has been acquired not by fraud, but by using any means that disrupt the authorized procedure for trademark registration, impair public interests, improperly occupy public resources or otherwise are in pursuit of unjust profits. Article 4 of the Trademark Law provides that any natural person, legal person or other organization that needs to obtain the exclusive right to use a trademark for the goods or services that they produce, manufacture, process, select or market shall apply to register the trademark with the Trademark Office. It may be inferred from this article that, to validly apply for a registered trademark, the civil subject should have a genuine intention to use the trademark to meet their own needs and that the means the subject uses to achieve trademark registration shall be reasonable or legitimate.

 

According to the facts established by the TRAB and at first instance, relevant governmental authorities in Hainan Province had already been using and promoting the name Haitangwan before Li Longfeng applied to register the disputed trademarks, and it had become the publicly known name of a resort area in Sanya City, as well as the name of a major comprehensive development project, demonstrating distinct meaning and designation. When interviewed in the press, Li Longfeng had admitted that he applied to register the trademarks only because media coverage had led him to believe that the mark would become very famous and thus profitable when renowned entrepreneurs from Hong Kong participated in the Haitangwan development project. As an individual, Li Longfeng had obtained registration of the trademarks at issue not only for Class 36 services, including rental of real estate, management of real estate and residence (apartment), and for Class 43 services, spanning accommodation bureau services (hotels, boarding houses), tourist home services, hotel services and restaurant services, but also for use in relation to other classes of goods and services. Li Longfeng had obtained registration of more than 30 additional trademarks, such as Xiangshuiwan and Yelinwan for various classes of goods and services, some of which marks were related to well-known names of places and scenic spots in Hainan Island. In so doing, Li Longfeng intended to exploit the huge influence of the governmental authorities efforts to promote and market Haitangwan as a resort area and of investment in the Haitangwan development project, and hence he squatted several trademarks related to Haitangwan and obtained registration of a large number of other trademarks without justifiable reason.

 

The Supreme People’s Court found that Li Longfeng’s conduct demonstrated that he had no intention to use the mark himself and had no legitimate justification for registering such a trademark, and that his application for permission to appeal constituted improper occupation of public resources and disruption of the authorized procedure for trademark registration.