News

When multinational corporations' global strategies face trademark rights challenges from local Chinese enterprises, and when administrative procedures repeatedly encounter setbacks and重重 difficulties, should they retreat or resolutely break through the impasse?

Attorney Yang Siping of JAVY Law Firm, leveraging exceptional professional expertise, secured comprehensive victories in both the first and second instances. This triumphant outcome successfully eliminated a major threat to the client's brand development, reaffirming that in the complex arena of intellectual property, “professionalism” and “perseverance” remain irreplaceable core competitive advantages.

I. The Dilemma: Multinational Corporations' Trademark Woes and Setbacks in Administrative Proceedings

This case originated when a renowned multinational corporation, while legitimately enforcing its trademark rights in China, faced a counterattack from a Guangdong-based company. The latter invoked its prior registration of the “Little X Horse” trademark to file an invalidation declaration, placing the client's long-established trademark in China at significant risk.

Shifting from defense to offense proved the key to breaking the deadlock. The client filed a “revocation for non-use within three years” application against the disputed trademark. However, this strategy encountered repeated setbacks during the administrative phase:

• The CNIPA upheld the registration of the disputed trademark after examination;

• During the reexamination proceedings, the CNIPA again upheld the trademark.

These consecutive defeats plunged the client's brand into a severe crisis. At this critical juncture, Attorney Yang Siping was entrusted with the case and filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.

II. Breaking the Deadlock: Uncovering Truth in Detail, Precision Strikes Secure Victory

True expertise lies in spotting flaws invisible to others.

Faced with seemingly comprehensive evidence—including trademark authorization agreements, sales invoices, advertising contracts, and newspaper advertisements—we avoided passive defense. Instead, we conducted meticulous legal analysis, convinced that even the most perfect chain of evidence contains vulnerabilities. We ultimately pinpointed multiple critical flaws and presented them forcefully during the first-instance trial:

1. Defective Qualifications of the Licensee

The trademark authorization letter provided by the opposing party indicated the licensee was an individual business (a water dispenser shop), whose business scope was limited to retailing pre-packaged food and water dispensing equipment. It fundamentally lacked the qualifications required for bottled water production. This authorization clearly defied the basic commercial logic of production and licensing in the bottled water industry.

2. Redundant Authorization Defies Industry Norms

As a retail outlet, this individual business typically requires no separate trademark authorization to sell goods. The opposing party deliberately fabricated an authorization letter—an unnecessary and highly unusual practice that starkly contradicts industry standards, revealing their desperate attempts to cobble together evidence.

3. Invoices Severely Violate Commercial Logic

We precisely identified multiple anomalies in the key sales invoices submitted by the opposing party: consecutive numbers, issued on the same date, to the same purchaser, for identical amounts—yet corresponding to two different product names, “Big X-Ma” and “Small X-Ma.” More notably, they issued invoices for the non-existent “Big X-Ma” bottled water, and the submitted invoice copies also deviated from standard commercial practice. This directly points to a token transaction conducted solely to maintain trademark registration.

4. Proactively Uncovering Tampering to Elevate Judicial Scrutiny Standards

Regarding an advertising expense invoice submitted by the opposing party, we did not stop at pointing out the superficial flaw that “both the seller and buyer are unrelated to this case.” Instead, we further investigated and discovered that the opposing party had privately added the phrase “Xiao X Ma Brand Beverage Promotional Flyer,” constituting evidence fabrication. This investigative breakthrough was not only directly recognized in the first-instance judgment but also successfully prompted the court to apply stricter scrutiny standards to all evidence submitted by the opposing party, becoming a pivotal factor in turning the tide of the case.

Based on our incisive, layered, and systematic evidence presentation, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court fully adopted our arguments in the first instance. It ruled to revoke the decision made by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and ordered it to issue a new ruling on the disputed trademark. This pivotal victory not only completely reversed the passive situation during the administrative phase but also laid a solid foundation for the subsequent final triumph.

III. Victory: Calmly Countering Evidence Surprises, Securing Final Triumph Through Professional Expertise

The opposing party appealed the first-instance ruling to the Beijing Higher People's Court. During the latter stages of the second-instance proceedings, they abruptly submitted seven sets of new evidence, attempting to turn the tide through an “evidence surprise.” The case's complexity escalated dramatically.

True professional competence is not only demonstrated by dominance in routine cases, but also by composure and wisdom in handling unexpected situations. Confronted with this surprise tactic, we swiftly conducted an in-depth analysis of all new evidence and prepared legal responses. Building upon our previously submitted “Second-Instance Answer,” “Statement of Defense and Similar Case Search Report,” we consecutively filed a series of legal documents with the court, including “Objections to Evidence,” “Supplemental Statement of Defense,” “Letter to the Panel of Judges,” and “Supplemental Defense Opinions.” This established a robust defense system on both substantive and procedural fronts:

• Substantive Aspect: We systematically dissected the fatal flaws in the opposing party's new evidence set, precisely exposing multiple instances of forgery, alteration, and significant commercial logic contradictions in both formal requirements and substantive content. Taking the key evidence—the purchase and sale contract—as an example, our multidimensional analysis confirmed fundamental inconsistencies in both its form and substantive content that could not be reconciled. This discovery became the core breakthrough in dismantling the opposing party's evidence framework;

• Procedural Aspects: We explicitly pointed out that the opposing party had already been afforded ample opportunity to present evidence during the administrative phase (including the cancellation and review procedures). Furthermore, during the first-instance proceedings, they refused to appear in court despite lawful summons and without valid justification, which legally constitutes a waiver of their litigation rights. Their sudden submission of new evidence during the second-instance phase clearly violated the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Law and relevant judicial interpretations regarding the time limits for presenting evidence. It also contravened the rules of evidence in administrative litigation and should not be accepted under the law.

IV. Victory: Final Appeal Dismissed, Protecting Client Interests and Market Order

On August 29, 2025, the Beijing Higher People's Court issued its final judgment: Dismiss the appeal and uphold the original ruling! The court explicitly stated in its judgment:

• Given the opposing party's fabrication of evidence, all their evidence should be subject to strict scrutiny;

• The relevant sales activities constituted merely symbolic use to maintain trademark registration;

• After comprehensive evaluation of the evidence on record, there was insufficient proof to establish genuine, lawful, and effective commercial use of the disputed trademark within the designated period.

Thus concluded this protracted, complex, and arduous trademark litigation with our complete victory. We successfully neutralized a major trademark threat to our client in the Chinese market, robustly safeguarding their brand security and development prospects.

V. Conclusion: Expertise Leads to Victory, Trust Creates Value

Every complex case tests not only a lawyer's legal expertise but also their sense of responsibility, meticulousness, and endurance. Our success in this case stemmed from:

• Precise and insightful evidence analysis—uncovering critical flaws in minute details that determined the case's outcome;

• Masterful application of procedural rules—precisely navigating litigation protocols to counter procedural violations;

• Composure under trial pressure—calmly dismantling opposing counsel’s surprise evidence attacks;

• Client-first dedication and unwavering commitment—exhausting all lawful means to safeguard client interests with utmost diligence.

Moving forward, JAVY law firm, Attorney Yang Siping, and their team will continue leveraging their exceptional expertise, extensive practical experience, and forward-looking industry perspective to provide proactive risk warnings and systematic solutions for corporate clients' intellectual property assets. This commitment empowers businesses to navigate legal risks in the digital age, ensuring steady progress amid innovation and competition.