On 8 November 2023 the Hubei High Court issued a judgment in the long-running Michelin saga, upholding the first-instance decision and clarifying some interesting aspects about well-known status of trademarks in China (2022 E Zhi Min Zhong no 190).

The dispute involved the Bureau National Interprofessionnel du Cognac (BNIC) - the French organisation responsible for promoting and safeguarding the geographical indication (GI) ‘Cognac’ - and the Chinese affiliates of Ford Motor Company, a prominent automotive supplier (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ford China’).

The Zhejiang High Court has upheld a first-instance decision that determined infringing use of a trade name that constituted unfair competition. The word ‘Michelin’, which is the name of a French company famous for its tyres, as well as the Michelin Guide, is written ‘米其林’in Chinese – pronounced ‘mi qi lin’. This Chinese name is registered, along with Michelin, in Classes 12 (tyres) and 16 (the guide).

Tommy Hilfiger worked with celebrated British illustrator and graphic designer Fergus Purcell to introduce its brand-new monogram in 2022:

Michelin tyres and the Michelin Guides are the two core product lines of the Michelin Group. The increasing popularity of Michelin in China recently led the company to take enforcement measures not only against tyre manufacturers or restaurants and catering businesses, but also against pet-related products and services.

A decision rendered by the Putuo District Court of Shanghai in October 2022 has been freshly published by IPHouse, bringing it centre stage once more. In this, court dismissed a trademark infringement suit and partially upheld the defendant’s counterclaim by awarding 70,000 yuan in attorney fees. This decision is a crucial one because it highlights that the courts are paying increasingly close attention to plaintiffs’ subjective intentions.

On 12 June 2023 the Beijing High Court rendered a decision finding that a trademark squatter that had not entered into business relations with the brand owner should be deemed as having “other relations” with the latter, as prescribed by Article 15(2) of the 2013 China Trademark Law. This clause was added to the law in 2013 to address cases of bad faith where a trademark applicant, even though it is not the agent or representative of the owner of an unregistered trademark, had "contractual, business or other relations" with it, so that it would “definitively know of the existence of this trademark”.

Over the past two years, China has been reforming and optimising its judicial and administrative systems for trademarks. As part of these reforms, the first draft of an amendment to the Chinese Trademark Law, proposed by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), was unveiled at the beginning of 2023. These significant developments were driven by some landmark cases.

TOMMY HILFIGER v TOMMY CROWN: ‘transformative use’ of registered trademark found to be infringing

In a recently surfaced administrative decision, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court has sided with the applicant for a defensive trademark, finding no foul play in the applicant’s conduct. Rendered on 26 December 2022, the decision considered whether the defensive trademark registration constituted a bad-faith application for a trademark that was not intended for use, which is banned by Article 4 of the 2019 China Trademark Law.

A decision rendered by the Putuo District Court of Shanghai in October 2022 has been freshly published by IPHouse, bringing it centre stage once more. In this, court dismissed a trademark infringement suit and partially upheld the defendant’s counterclaim by awarding 70,000 yuan in attorney fees. This decision is a crucial one because it highlights that the courts are paying increasingly close attention to plaintiffs’ subjective intentions.