Case of Litigation Supervision over Administrative Dispute over Trademark Dispute between Guangzhou Monalisa Building Materials Co., Ltd., Guangzhou Monalisa Bath Ware Co., Ltd. and China National Intellectual Property Administration
(Case No.191 of the Guiding Case of the Supreme People's Procuratorate)
Key words
Protection of intellectual property rights, Administrative dispute over trademark dispute, Similar goods, Similar trademarks, Continuous registration, Search for similar cases, Procuratorate's Protest
Key point
For the identification of similar goods or similar trademarks, the core function of a trademark used to distinguish the source of goods or services should be considered. Emphasis should be placed on examining whether the trademark is likely to cause confusion or misunderstanding to the relevant public. A trademark registrant enjoys independent exclusive trademark rights for each of the registered trademarks, and there is no automatic continuity between trademarks registered at different times. In judicial practices, the conditions for the continuous registration of trademarks shall be strictly implemented. In handling intellectual property cases, the procuratorial organs shall generally conduct searches for similar cases.
Relevant provisions
Article 28 and 41 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (Rev. 2001)
Article 91 and 93(1) of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (Rev. 2017)
Article 94 of the Rules for Supervision over Administrative Proceedings by the People's Procuratorate (Effective since 2021)
