The Supreme People’s Court (SPC) recently issued a retrial judgment in the trademark rejection review case concerning the mark “TREASURY WINE ESTATES and Device” (the “disputed mark”). The SPC held that the disputed mark does not fall within the “other detrimental effects” provision under Article 10.1.8 of the Trademark Law, overturning the CNIPA’s rejection review decision as well as the first- and second-instance judgments. Representing the applicant, Rothbury Wine Pty Ltd (“Rothbury”), East IP Law Firm successfully secured a favorable final judgment.

Rothbury is part of the Treasury Wine Estates group. In June 2021, Rothbury applied for territorial extension of protection of the disputed mark in China for services in Class 43, including bar and cafe services.

In November 2021, CNIPA rejected the application on the ground that use of the mark would likely cause “adverse social effects.” Following review proceedings and subsequent administrative litigation, CNIPA, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, and the Beijing High People’s Court all held that the mark fell within Article 10.1.8 of the Trademark Law, which prohibits marks with “other detrimental effects.”

The lower courts found that “TREASURY” could refer to the Ministry of Finance and that the mark as a whole could be understood as “Ministry of Finance Wine Estate,” potentially harming China’s political, economic, cultural, religious, ethnic, or other public interests and order.

SPC Retrial: “Detrimental Effects” Finding Overturned

During the retrial proceedings, East IP argued that the disputed mark should not be considered to have detrimental effects for several reasons:

1. The disputed mark is a composite mark consisting of a shield-shaped emblem and the words “TREASURY WINE ESTATES.” The term “TREASURY” has multiple meanings and, in ordinary usage, does not refer to the Ministry of Finance. Chinese consumers would not reasonably associate the mark with “Ministry of Finance Wine Estate,” and the official English name of China’s Ministry of Finance does not contain the word “TREASURY.”
2. Rothbury already owns multiple registered trademarks identical or similar to the disputed mark, including marks incorporating the wording “TREASURY WINE ESTATES.” Refusing registration of the disputed mark would therefore conflict with the principle of examination consistency.
3. “TREASURY WINE ESTATES” is the English corporate name of Rothbury’s parent company, Treasury Wine Estates. Through long-term use and promotion by companies within the group, the mark has established a stable connection with its Chinese name, “富邑葡萄酒集团” (Fuyi Wine Group), and has become recognized among Chinese consumers.

The SPC accepted Rothbury’s arguments and held that the disputed mark, consisting of the shield-shaped emblem and the wording “TREASURY WINE ESTATES,” does not fall within the prohibition of Article 10.1.8. The SPC found that “TREASURY” is commonly understood as referring to concepts such as “wealth,” “treasure,” or “treasure house,” rather than a government finance department. Chinese consumers would therefore not mistake the mark for a wine estate operated by a government authority. The SPC further recognized that, through long-term use and promotion, “TREASURY WINE ESTATES” had established a stable association with “富邑葡萄酒集团” and was recognized by the relevant public.

The SPC’s reasoning provides valuable guidance for trademark cases involving absolute grounds for refusal, including “detrimental effects” and misleading grounds. When assessing whether a mark falls within these provisions, the analysis should focus on the ordinary perception of Chinese consumers and consider the mark’s composition, registration history, and actual use. Relying solely on dictionary meanings may depart from the perspective of the relevant public and overlook the commercial nature of trademarks as signs used in trade.

Partner Hope Yang and lawyer Alicia Ma provided full legal services throughout the case, with lawyer Jie Yin also providing support.