News

A single trademark that entirely incorporates another party’s well-known brand;

A single company that simultaneously imitates multiple third-party trademarks.

When the excuse of ‘coincidence’ was stripped away layer by layer,

the China National Intellectual Property Administration ruled: registration denied.

I. Background: A bottle of “San Miguel Xianquan” sparks a brand defence battle

In 2024, during routine trademark monitoring for San Miguel Beer (one of Asia’s top three beer brands), the legal team led by Yang Siping at JAVY Law Firm discovered that a trademark named “San Miguel Xianquan” had passed the preliminary examination by the China National Intellectual Property Administration and was published in the Trademark Gazette.

The applicant was a drinking water plant based in Boluo County, Guangdong, with designated goods in Class 32 including “mineral water; energy drinks; soda water”, amongst others.

“San Miguel” – a brand name originating from the Philippines and enjoying a prestigious reputation in the Asian and global beer markets – appeared in its entirety within another company’s trademark.

Not only does the text of this trademark closely resemble San Miguel’s core “San Miguel” brand, but the designated goods are also highly related—one being beer, the other mineral water and beverages. Both fall within the beverage sector, with highly overlapping sales channels and consumer demographics.

If this trademark were allowed to be registered, might consumers, upon seeing “San Miguel Xianquan” mineral water, mistakenly believe it to be a new product launched by San Miguel?

Thus began a battle to defend the brand.

II. The Confrontation: ‘Coincidence’ or ‘Deliberate Act’?

Once the case entered the opposition proceedings, the opposing party responded swiftly, with their core defence boiling down to just two words:

“Coincidence.”

The opposing party claimed that their company name already contained the characters “San Miguel”, and that “San Miguel Xianquan” was a natural extension of their business name, bearing no relation to San Miguel’s well-known brand and amounting to nothing more than an “unintentional oversight”.

At first glance, this argument appears well-founded.

However, professional trademark agents know that to lift the veil of “coincidence”, one must look beyond this single trademark and examine the bigger picture—does the opposing party hold any other trademarks?

The answer soon came to light.

III. Breaking the Deadlock: A Complete Portrait of a ‘Free-Rider’

We retrieved the respondent’s full record of trademark applications, and a complete portrait of a ‘free-rider’ gradually came into focus:

In addition to ‘Shengli Xianquan’, the respondent had also applied for:

‘Luofu Bingquan’ — highly similar to ‘Luofu Mountain’, a well-known scenic spot in Guangdong;

“Milu Xianquan” — highly similar to a trademark previously used by another party that possesses a certain degree of originality.

A bottled water plant had, within the space of just a few years, applied for multiple trademarks that “coincidentally” resembled the well-known marks of others.

Can this still be called a “coincidence”?

In trademark opposition cases, a ‘coincidence’ in a single instance may be difficult to disprove; however, when multiple trademarks similar to another party’s well-known marks appear under the same entity, the explanation of ‘coincidence’ loses all credibility.

This is not a coincidence; it is a pattern.

It is not unintentional; it is deliberate.

IV. Ruling: The National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) explicitly states — ‘Disrupting the order; registration denied’

In 2025, the China National Intellectual Property Administration issued a ruling fully upholding Shengli Company’s grounds for opposition.

The ruling explicitly stated: “Upon investigation, it was found that, in addition to the opposed trademark, the opponent had also applied to register multiple trademarks identical or similar to trademarks previously used by other companies and possessing a certain degree of originality, such as ‘Luofu Ice Spring’ and ‘Milu Xianquan’. The opponent’s conduct has disrupted the normal order of trademark registration administration and undermined a fair competitive market environment, contravening the legislative spirit of the Trademark Law regarding the prohibition of obtaining trademark registration through deceptive or other improper means.”

Pursuant to Articles 30 and 35 of the Trademark Law, the CNIPA ultimately ruled that the “Shengli Xianquan” trademark shall not be registered.

V. Lessons Learned: Three ‘Essential Questions’ for Brand Protection

The victory in this case offers three important lessons for brand rights holders:

1. Brand monitoring must look beyond ‘identical names’

Many companies focus solely on trademarks that are ‘exactly the same’ as their own, yet overlook situations where a trademark is ‘fully encompassed’ by another.

‘Shengli’ and ‘Shengli Xianquan’ – the latter fully encompasses the former, and the designated goods are highly related. Such a scenario can equally lead to market confusion.

The scope of monitoring should be extended to cover ‘inclusion relationships’.

2. When proving bad faith, do not focus solely on ‘this one instance’

When faced with a defence of ‘coincidence’, the best response is not to argue, but to present the ‘full picture of the case’.

When the opposing party holds multiple trademarks that imitate well-known marks, the ‘coincidence’ argument in any single case falls apart.

Let the evidence speak for itself and reveal the pattern.

3. Timing is of the essence in enforcement actions

In this case, Shengli Company filed an opposition immediately after the opposition mark was published for preliminary examination, seizing the golden window of opportunity for enforcement.

In trademark enforcement, the window of opportunity is fleeting. A step ahead means lower costs; a step behind makes the situation insurmountable.

Monitoring must be early, and action must be swift.

Behind every well-known brand lies the result of long-term investment and meticulous management.