News

‘The protagonist of this case is not an ordinary trademark - it carries the lifelong medical soul of Luo Youming (1904-2008), the founder of the national intangible cultural heritage ‘Luo's orthopaedic method’, whose portrait is not only the core symbol of the historical brand, but also the totem of the times of the Chinese medicine orthopaedic culture ‘.

-- Yang Siping, Attorney-at-Law

I. Icebreaking absolute refusal: an ‘impossible task’ of trademark rights

In October 2024, the State Intellectual Property Office (‘State Intellectual Property Office’) rejected the application for registration of the trademark No. 75411030 ‘Luo Youming's Portrait’ (Class 44 Medical Services). The decision cited Article 10(1)(g) of the Trademark Law, which states that the likeness of a public figure (Luo Youming) is likely to cause the public to misidentify the source of the service - this is the toughest absolute rejection clause in trademark registration, with a success rate of less than 5%.

In the face of this industry-recognised ‘iron wall’, Yang Siping's team rose to the challenge. When combing through the case, they found three major legal difficulties:

 The problem of rights traceability: need to prove the technology and rights inheritance relationship between the late 100-year-old doctor ‘Shuangqiao old lady - Luo Youming’ and the plaintiff Luo Suxia's grandchildren.

Inconsistency in the application of the law: the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) had approved the Plaintiff's trademark (No. 62159122) for an almost identical combination of words and images (the Beijing Municipal Higher People's Court had already made a final judgement).

Intangible heritage protection dilemma: As a national intangible cultural heritage (No. 445 IX-6), the trademark right of the inheritor of the ‘Luo's Bone-setting Method’, if not protected, will lead to confusion in the marketplace and a break in culture.

The way to break through the three legal barriers with judicial wisdom

1. The ‘legal archaeology’ of rights inheritance

Yang Siping's team spent three months to build an impeccable chain of evidence:

Tracing back to the ‘Luo Youming Notarial Declaration’ in 1997 (Luo Suxia is the granddaughter of Luo Youming, a famous bone-setting doctor, and is the true inheritor of Luo's bone-setting techniques);

Tracing the 1999 and 2001 Notarised Declaration of Luo Youming (exclusively authorising his only son, Luo Jindian, to register and use the trademark of Luo Youming's name and likeness);

Tracing the notarised Family Trademark Agreement of 2015 (all heirs confirmed that Luo Suxia alone inherited the Luo Youming series of trademarks in the name of his father, Luo Jindian);

Access to the effective judgement of the Beijing High Court (2023) Beijing Xingzhi No. 8699 (judicial confirmation of the trademark ‘Luo Youming and Figure - 62159122 - Class 44’).

2. Breaking the ‘inconsistency of standards’ of administrative review

During the litigation, Mr Yang pointed out the inconsistency of the examination standard of the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), and requested the court and the SIPO to correct the inconsistency:

‘The trademark at issue and the plaintiff's registered trademark No. 62159122 are the same as Luo Youming's portrait, belong to the same Class 44 medical services, and were applied for by Luo Suxia - the sameness of the three is not recognised, which is not in line with the principle of consistency of trademark examination standards.’

3. ‘Jurisprudential Integration’ of Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection and Trademark Rights

Yang Siping lawyer creatively proposed in the statement of proxy:

‘When the trademark right carries the national intangible cultural heritage (Luo's orthopedic method), justice should recognise its dual value:

One is the function of identifying the commercial source, and the other is the function of guarding the cultural orthodoxy.

If the disputed trademark is not approved, it will lead to the infringer plundering the real right holder's intangible cultural symbols and ultimately harming the public interest!’

Classical Judgement: A Winning Lawsuit to Protect the Soul of Century-old Medicine

The Beijing Intellectual Property Court adopted Yang Siping's viewpoints and issued a historic judgement in March 2025, which confirmed Luo Suxia's status as the sole subject of rights:

Confirmation of Luo Suxia's status as the sole subject of rights: Based on Luo Youming's notarised declaration, family agreement and effective judgement, it confirmed that she was the sole right holder of Luo Youming's portrait trademark;

Overruling the ‘misidentification’ determination of the State Intellectual Property Office: pointing out that the relevant public knew that Luo Suxia was a direct descendant of Luo Youming, a famous bone-setting doctor, and that authorising her trademark would not be misidentified by the public, and instead would clarify the origin;

Establishing special protection rules for non-legacy trademarks: emphasising that for trademarks carrying cultural heritage, the review should take into account the legitimacy of cultural heritage.

IV. Inspiration of the case: the strategic value of trademark protection

This case is not only a victory for individual rights, but also creates three major precedents:

The first trademark case for the portrait of a pioneer of non-heritage: providing a judicial model for the protection of traditional cultural brands;

The classic battle of breaking the absolute rejection barrier: proving that professional lawyers can break the ‘registration impossibility’;

Establishing the Principle of Consistency in Trademark Examination: Fixing the Inconsistency of Standards Existing in Case-by-Case Examination by Administrative Organs.

‘Trademark right is the lifeline of brand, but also the carrier of cultural heritage.’ Yang Siping pointed out that ‘this case suggests that enterprises: in the face of the core trademark was rejected, from the rights of traceability, examination standards, the public interest of the three-dimensional construction of the logic of the breakthrough - this is the essence of our 18 years of deep-rooted intellectual property protection.’