Nutricia, a famous Holland-based baby formula manufacturer has fought for the trademark "Aptamil" in China for three years. Recently, Beijing High People's Court wrapped up the three-year battle once and for all with its final-instance judgment, upholding the revoking decision by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board （TRAB） under the State Administration for Industry and Commerce （SAIC）。 The court held that the No. 10000314 trademark "Aptamil" （trademark in dispute） should not be allowed to be used in products （products involved in the case） such as bibs of paper, paper or cellulose made baby diapers.

The Shanghai-based Luqi Commodity Co.Ltd （Luqi） filed for registration of the trademark in dispute on September 23, 2011 and would later obtain the trademark registration, certified to be used in Class 16 products including bibs of paper, paper or cellulose made baby diapers, paper napkin, paper handkerchief, paper tablecloth and paper duster. The trademark in dispute was transferred to one legal representative surnamed Zheng of a company on November 21, 2013.

Nutricia then sought invalidation of the trademark in dispute before the TRAB on November 6, 2014, claiming the application of trademark registration was obtained in bad faith and constituted a namesake mark with its No. 5576804 trademark "Aptamil" used in similar products.

The TRAB handed out its ruling on September 29, 2015, holding that the trademark in dispute was totally the same with the reference mark in formation of letters, pronunciation and meaning, which constituted a namesake mark. The two marks had a close association which would easily cause confusion among consumers. Thus, the TRAB invalidated the trademark in dispute to be used in products involved in the case and sustained the registration of the trademark in other products.

The disgruntled Zheng brought the case to Beijing IP Court. He argued that the trademark in dispute was very distinctive and had a high reputation and the products involved in the case did not constitute similar products with products in which the reference mark was certified to be used. Meanwhile, he claimed that his company was a subsidiary company established in China by Germany-based Aptamil Company.

Beijing IP Court held that the reference trademark which was approved to be used in baby formula has enjoyed reputation to some extent and was highly creative. The trademark in dispute was totally the same with the reference mark. Moreover, Zheng was in the same industry with Nutricia and he should be aware of the above-mentioned facts. Therefore, Beijing IP Court rejected the appeal by Zheng in its first-instance judgment on February 25, 2017.

Zheng did not succumb to the decision and then appealed to the Beijing High People's Court. Beijing High upheld the first-instance judgment rejecting the petition by Zheng in the final ruling.  （by Wang Guohao）

(Source: CHINA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY NEWS)