The Supreme People\u2019s Court (SPC) recently issued a retrial judgment in the trademark rejection review case concerning the mark \u201cTREASURY WINE ESTATES and Device\u201d (the \u201cdisputed mark\u201d). The SPC held that the disputed mark does not fall within the \u201cother detrimental effects\u201d provision under Article 10.1.8 of the Trademark Law, overturning the CNIPA\u2019s rejection review decision as well as the first- and second-instance judgments. Representing the applicant, Rothbury Wine Pty Ltd (\u201cRothbury\u201d), East IP Law Firm successfully secured a favorable final judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In November 2021, CNIPA rejected the application on the ground that use of the mark would likely cause \u201cadverse social effects.\u201d Following review proceedings and subsequent administrative litigation, CNIPA, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, and the Beijing High People\u2019s Court all held that the mark fell within Article 10.1.8 of the Trademark Law, which prohibits marks with \u201cother detrimental effects.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The lower courts found that \u201cTREASURY\u201d could refer to the Ministry of Finance and that the mark as a whole could be understood as \u201cMinistry of Finance Wine Estate,\u201d potentially harming China\u2019s political, economic, cultural, religious, ethnic, or other public interests and order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
During the retrial proceedings, East IP argued that the disputed mark should not be considered to have detrimental effects for several reasons:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The SPC accepted Rothbury\u2019s arguments and held that the disputed mark, consisting of the shield-shaped emblem and the wording \u201cTREASURY WINE ESTATES,\u201d does not fall within the prohibition of Article 10.1.8. The SPC found that \u201cTREASURY\u201d is commonly understood as referring to concepts such as \u201cwealth,\u201d \u201ctreasure,\u201d or \u201ctreasure house,\u201d 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, \u201cTREASURY WINE ESTATES\u201d had established a stable association with \u201c\u5bcc\u9091\u8461\u8404\u9152\u96c6\u56e2\u201d and was recognized by the relevant public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The SPC\u2019s reasoning provides valuable guidance for trademark cases involving absolute grounds for refusal, including \u201cdetrimental effects\u201d 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u5408\u4f19\u4eba \u6768\u548c\u5e73<\/a> and lawyer \u9a6c\u6d2a<\/a> provided full legal services throughout the case, with lawyer Jie Yin also providing support.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Supreme People\u2019s Court (SPC) recently issued a retrial judgment in the trademark rejection review case concerning the mark \u201cTREASURY WINE ESTATES and Device\u201d.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":1005,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[142,134],"class_list":["post-5097","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","tag-cases","tag-english-news-only"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.east-ip.com\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5097","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.east-ip.com\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.east-ip.com\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.east-ip.com\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.east-ip.com\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5097"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.east-ip.com\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5097\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5098,"href":"https:\/\/www.east-ip.com\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5097\/revisions\/5098"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.east-ip.com\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1005"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.east-ip.com\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5097"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.east-ip.com\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5097"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.east-ip.com\/zh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5097"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}