{"id":1310,"date":"2021-04-15T23:22:50","date_gmt":"2021-04-15T23:22:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/?p=1310"},"modified":"2021-04-15T23:22:50","modified_gmt":"2021-04-15T23:22:50","slug":"guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-iii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/04\/guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-iii\/","title":{"rendered":"Guest Post: Well-Known Mark Recognitions in China \u2013 Part III"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><em>This is the third guest post in a 4-part series regarding Chinese well-known trademarks by <a href=\"https:\/\/www.beijingeastip.com\/type-team\/1895\/\">Yan Zhang<\/a>,\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.beijingeastip.com\/type-team\/feifei-bian\/\">Feifei Bian<\/a>\u00a0& Austin Chang of Beijing East IP. The first part is available\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/04\/guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-i\/\">here<\/a> and the second <a href=\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/04\/guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-ii\/\">here<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>In Part II of this series, we shared our representative cases on how to apply the concept of anti-dilution for the protection of a well-known trademark in administrative trademark litigations. In Part III, we selected our representative cases to further illustrate how the courts apply well-known mark recognition and extend the scope of protection for a well-known mark.<\/p>\n<p><strong>1. RITZ-CARLTON v. \u201cLI SI KA ER DUN in Chinese\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Chengdu Zhi Zhi Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (\u201cZhi Zhi\u201d) applied for the \u201cLI SI KA ER DUN in Chinese (\u4e3d\u601d\u5361\u5c14\u987f)\u201d mark (\u201cDisputed Mark\u201d) with App. No. 5336988 in Class 36 for \u201ccommercial housing sales services; insurance; capital investment; art valuation; real estate agency; agency; guarantee; raise charitable funds; entrusted management; pawn shop\u201d on May 9, 2006. The Disputed Mark was approved for registration on October 14, 2009.<\/p>\n<table class=\" aligncenter\" width=\"475\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Disputed Mark<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><strong>Cited Mark 1<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><strong>Cited Mark 2<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\" wp-image-7609 aligncenter\" src=\"https:\/\/www.beijingeastip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/RC-DM.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"131\" height=\"43\" \/><\/td>\n<td><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter size-full wp-image-7607\" src=\"https:\/\/www.beijingeastip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/RC-CM1.png\" sizes=\"(max-width: 148px) 100vw, 148px\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.beijingeastip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/RC-CM1.png 148w, https:\/\/www.beijingeastip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/RC-CM1-147x28.png 147w\" alt=\"\" width=\"148\" height=\"28\" \/><\/td>\n<td><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter size-full wp-image-7608\" src=\"https:\/\/www.beijingeastip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/RC-CM2.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"138\" height=\"34\" \/><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>Ritz-Carlton owns prior registrations for the \u201cRITZ-CARLTON\u201d mark (\u201cCited Mark 1\u201d) \u00a0and the \u201cLI SI KA ER DUN in Chinese (\u4e3d\u601d\u5361\u5c14\u987f)\u201d mark (\u201cCited Mark 2\u201d) in Class 42 (Class 43) for \u201chotels; restaurants; barbeque restaurants; tea rooms; etc.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Ritz-Carlton filed a dispute cancellation against the Disputed Mark on March 28, 2010 before the CNIPA (then the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board). The CNIPA issued a decision that maintained the Disputed Mark\u2019s validity on August 29, 2011. Unsatisfied, Ritz-Carlton appealed to the Beijing First Intermediate Court.<\/p>\n<p>On December 20, 2012, the Beijing First Intermediate Court reversed the CNIPA\u2019s decision. Zhi Zhi was unsatisfied and appealed to the Beijing High Court. On July 31, 2013, the Beijing High Court, as the second instance court, issued the final decision that affirmed the Beijing First Intermediate Court\u2019s decision against Zhi Zhi.<\/p>\n<p>In this case, the Beijing High Court found that the Disputed Mark consisted of \u201cLI SI KA ER DUN in Chinese (\u4e3d\u601d\u5361\u5c14\u987f)\u201d and before the Disputed Mark\u2019s application date, media and the Internet had widely adapted and used \u201cLI SI KA ER DUN in Chinese (\u4e3d\u601d\u5361\u5c14\u987f)\u201d to refer to RITZ-CARLTON. Ritz-Carlton submitted sufficient evidence during the administrative and judicial proceedings to prove that they had received great businesses in the hotel industry, received numerous awards, and attracted high levels of media\u2019s attention before the Disputed Mark\u2019s application date. Namely, before the Disputed Mark\u2019s application date, \u201cLI SI KA ER DUN in Chinese (\u4e3d\u601d\u5361\u5c14\u987f)\u201d could often be seen on various newspapers and the Internet, and such constant media reports subjectively expanded the societal influence of the \u201cLI SI KA ER DUN in Chinese (\u4e3d\u601d\u5361\u5c14\u987f)\u201d brand, allowed Ritz-Carlton to enjoy high fame among the relevant public in China. Thus, the Disputed Mark constituted as a translation of \u201cRITZ-CARLTON.\u201d Consider the \u201cRITZ-CARLTON\u201d mark obtained relative high fame on hotel related services through uses and promotions, and the Disputed Mark\u2019s approved services for \u201csales services for commercial real estate and real estate agency\u201d were related to the hotel services, the Disputed Mark\u2019s registration was likely to cause confusion to the public and damage Ritz-Carlton\u2019s interests. The Beijing First Intermediate Court correctly recognized the \u201cRITZ-CARLTON\u201d mark as a well-known mark, based on the evidence submitted, to protect Ritz-Carlton\u2019s trademark rights according to Article 13(2) of the\u00a0<em>2001 Chinese Trademark Law (\u201cTM Law\u201d)\u00a0 (Article 13(3) of the 2019 TM Law)<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p><strong>2. \u201cYAHOO!\u201d v. \u201cYahaoSoft\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Beijing Jing San Pu Business Trading Co., Ltd. (\u201cJing San Pu\u201d) applied for the \u201cYaohaoSoft\u201d mark (\u201cDisputed Mark\u201d) with App. No. 3610948 in Class 42 for \u201cintellectual property supervision; computer leasing; computer programming; computer software coding; computer software maintenance; creation and maintenance of websites for others; hosting computer stations (websites); computer hardware consulting\u201d on June 30, 2003. The Disputed Mark was published for opposition on May 28, 2005.<\/p>\n<table class=\" aligncenter\" width=\"356\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Disputed Mark<\/strong><\/td>\n<td><strong>Cited Mark<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter size-full wp-image-7611\" src=\"https:\/\/www.beijingeastip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/Yahoo-DM.png\" sizes=\"(max-width: 151px) 100vw, 151px\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.beijingeastip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/Yahoo-DM.png 151w, https:\/\/www.beijingeastip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/Yahoo-DM-150x40.png 150w, https:\/\/www.beijingeastip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/Yahoo-DM-147x40.png 147w\" alt=\"\" width=\"151\" height=\"40\" \/><\/td>\n<td><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter size-full wp-image-7610\" src=\"https:\/\/www.beijingeastip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/Yahoo-CM.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"112\" height=\"42\" \/><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>Yahoo! owns prior registrations for the \u201cYAHOO!\u201d mark (\u201cCited Mark\u201d) in Class 42 for \u201ccomputer service; namely: to query and retrieve the information used on the computer network.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Yahoo! filed an opposition against the Disputed Mark with the CNIPA on December 1, 2009 and the CNIPA refused the Disputed Mark for registration. Jing San Pu appealed to the Beijing First Intermediate Court. Yahoo! attended the hearing as a third-party attendee. The Beijing First Intermediate Court affirmed the CNIPA\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n<p>In its decision, the Beijing First Intermediate court found that except intellectual property supervision, all other services such as computer leasing, computer programming, etc. were similar to the Cited Mark\u2019s approved services \u201ccomputer service; namely: to query and retrieve the information used on the computer network.\u201d The \u201cSoft\u201d of the \u201cYahaoSoft\u201d can be understood meaning \u201csoftware\u201d when used on computer related services, which had weak distinctiveness, and the \u201cYahao\u201d part was the distinctive part of the Disputed Mark. When compared the Disputed Mark\u2019s distinctive part \u201cYahao\u201d with the Cited Mark \u201cYAHOO!,\u201d it was obvious that the font and pronunciation were similar. If both marks were to co-exist on identical or similar services, it was likely to cause relevant consumer to be confused or mistaken on the source of services. Thus, the Disputed Mark constituted a similar mark with the Cited Mark according to Article 28 of the\u00a0<em>2001 TM Law<\/em>\u00a0(Article 30 of the\u00a0<em>2019 TM Law)<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Yahoo! submitted sufficient evidence during the administrative proceeding to prove that Yahoo! had been using its English trade name \u201cYAHOO!\u201d for computer network related services prior to the Disputed Mark\u2019s application date. Yahoo!\u2019s trade name had attracted market reputation from the relevant public through use. There were strong associations between the computer network related services provided by Yahoo! and the Disputed Mark\u2019s designated services of computer leasing, computer software coding, etc. Accordingly, when the Disputed Mark was registered on the said designated services, the relevant public was likely to be confused as to the source of services and Yahoo\u2019s prior trade name right would be damaged according to Article 31 of the\u00a0<em>2001 TM Law\u00a0<\/em>(Article 32 of the\u00a0<em>2019 TM Law)<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>The evidence Yahoo! submitted during the administrative proceeding proved it had attracted market reputation before the Disputed Mark\u2019s application date on computer related services, namely, to query and retrieve the information used on the computer network. Combined with the fact that the Disputed Mark\u2019s main distinguishable part was similar to the Cited Mark in font and pronunciation, which constituted as the Cited Mark\u2019s imitation. Although the intellectual property supervision services designated under the Disputed Mark was not similar to the computer services designated under the Cited Mark, given that the Cited Mark had reached well-known status, the Disputed Mark\u2019s use on the said services would likely to cause the relevant public to mistaken that the Disputed Mark had certain association with the Cited Mark, and potentially damage the Cited Mark owner\u2019s interests according to Article 13(2)of the\u00a0<em>2001 TM Law<\/em>\u00a0(Article 13(3) of the\u00a0<em>2019 TM Law)<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p><strong>3. Beijing East IP analysis and comments<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.beijingeastip.com\/type-publications\/well-know-mark-recognitions-china-part1\/\">Part I of this series<\/a>\u00a0we mentioned that a mark can be recognized as well-known based on the principles of case-by-case recognition and need-based recognition. The main issue presented in the two cases is when and how to apply well-known mark recognition in each case.<\/p>\n<p>First, in the RITZ-CARLTON case, Ritz-Carlton based its grounds on Article 10(1)(viii), Article 13(2), Article 31, and Article 41(1) of the\u00a0<em>2001<\/em>\u00a0<em>TM Law.\u00a0<\/em>The court found that the Disputed Mark\u2019s registration does not fall into the conditions described in Article 10(1)(viii), Article 31, Article 41(1). The court only applied Article 13(2) in finding that Zhi Zhi\u2019s trademark registration in Class 36 would damage Ritz-Carlton\u2019s well-known mark in Class 42 (Class 43). Here, although Ritz-Carlton based its grounds on four different articles, the court held that the articles other than Article 13(2) did not apply, and that it was necessary to recognize the cited mark as a well-known mark to protect Ritz-Carlton\u2019s trademark rights.<\/p>\n<p>In the YAHOO! case, Yahoo! based its grounds on Article 13(2)<em>,\u00a0<\/em>Article 28, and Article 31 of the\u00a0<em>2001 TM Law<\/em>. The court applied Article 28 in finding that the Disputed Mark constituted as a similar mark to the Cited Mark when used on similar services. The court also applied Article 31 in finding that the Disputed Mark\u2019s registration on services similar to those services approved under the Cited Mark would damage Yahoo!\u2019s prior trade name right. Here, since the court had applied Article 28 and Article 31 in protecting Yahoo!\u2019s rights against the designated services on computer related services under the Disputed Mark, the court did not apply Article 13(2) for cross-class protection regarding the computer related services. The court\u2019s application of laws clearly demonstrated that when the interest party\u2019s rights can be protected by certain articles raised in its argument, the court will not apply the article regarding well-known mark recognition.<\/p>\n<p>Second, although well-known mark recognition provides cross-class protection, such protection only extends to the relevant goods or services covered by the level of the mark\u2019s well-known status, that is, the cross-class protection does not extend to all 45 classes. In the RITZ-CARLTON case, the court recognized the \u201cRITZ-CARLTON\u201d mark was well-known in hotels services. The Disputed Mark\u2019s approved goods on commercial housing sales services and real estate agency services were related to hotels services. Based on this finding, the court concluded that the Disputed Mark\u2019s registration on the said services would be likely to cause confusion to the relevant public and damage Ritz-Carlton\u2019s interests. The court, however, did not grant protection against other services (insurance; capital investment; art valuation; agency; guarantee; raise charitable funds; entrusted management; pawn shop) under the Disputed Mark. In the YAHOO! case, the court granted cross-class protection on the intellectual property supervision service based on Yahoo!\u2019s arguments that, in the Internet industry, intellectual property supervision was closely related to Yahoo!\u2019s well-known search engine related services and serves similar consumers.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the evidence we submitted on behalf of our clients during the administrative litigation proceedings was key in obtaining the well-known mark recognition. Generally, courts do not always admit new evidence in administrative litigation. In the RITZ-CARLTON case, the CNIPA and the courts have different views as to whether the \u201cRITZ-CARLTON\u201d mark could be recognized as a well-known mark. The difference lies in the admissibility of the large amount of new evidence submitted during the court proceeding. We collected and submitted copies of various evidence found through the National Library, the Shanghai Library, the China Tourism News, the People\u2019s Daily, Xinhua Net, CNKI and other media as corroborative evidence. Meanwhile, we further submitted the notarized documents as corroborative evidence to satisfy the formality requirement. The courts affirmed that the new evidence is to strengthen the evidence submitted during the CNIPA proceeding, in which Ritz-Carlton submitted substantial evidence to support its arguments. If not admitted, Ritz-Carlton\u2019s rights would be severely damaged. Especially under the circumstance that when comprehensively consider all evidence submitted, the cited mark can be recognized as a well-known mark, not admitting the supplemental evidence would be unjustified.<\/p>\n<p>As you may have guessed, evidence collection is an important phase in obtaining well-known mark recognition. Next, we will share different cases to further elaborate how to best collect evidence for a well-known mark.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p class=\"excerpt\">This is the third guest post in a 4-part series regarding Chinese well-known trademarks by Yan Zhang,\u00a0Feifei Bian\u00a0& Austin Chang of Beijing East IP. The first part is available\u00a0here and the second here. In Part II of this series, we shared our representative cases on how to apply the concept of anti-dilution for the protection of a well-known trademark in administrative trademark litigations. In Part III, we selected our representative cases to further illustrate how the courts apply well-known mark …<\/p>\n<p class=\"more-link\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/04\/guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-iii\/\" class=\"button\">Continue Reading<\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"coauthors":[43],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v22.5 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Guest Post: Well-Known Mark Recognitions in China \u2013 Part III - China IP Law Update<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/04\/guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-iii\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Guest Post: Well-Known Mark Recognitions in China \u2013 Part III - China IP Law Update\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"This is the third guest post in a 4-part series regarding Chinese well-known trademarks by Yan Zhang,\u00a0Feifei Bian\u00a0& Austin Chang of Beijing East IP. The first part is available\u00a0here and the second here. In Part II of this series, we shared our representative cases on how to apply the concept of anti-dilution for the protection of a well-known trademark in administrative trademark litigations. In Part III, we selected our representative cases to further illustrate how the courts apply well-known mark ...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/04\/guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-iii\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"China IP Law Update\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-04-15T23:22:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.beijingeastip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/RC-DM.png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Yan Zhang, Feifei Bian & Austin Chang\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Yan Zhang, Feifei Bian & Austin Chang\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/04\/guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-iii\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/04\/guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-iii\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Aaron Wininger\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/person\/cd3c63c8dfee9e4c102809b921868bc5\"},\"headline\":\"Guest Post: Well-Known Mark Recognitions in China \u2013 Part III\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-04-15T23:22:50+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-04-15T23:22:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/04\/guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-iii\/\"},\"wordCount\":1843,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/04\/guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-iii\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.beijingeastip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/RC-DM.png\",\"articleSection\":[\"Trademarks\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/04\/guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-iii\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/04\/guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-iii\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/04\/guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-iii\/\",\"name\":\"Guest Post: Well-Known Mark Recognitions in China \u2013 Part III - China IP Law Update\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/04\/guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-iii\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/04\/guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-iii\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.beijingeastip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/RC-DM.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-04-15T23:22:50+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-04-15T23:22:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/04\/guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-iii\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/04\/guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-iii\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/04\/guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-iii\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.beijingeastip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/RC-DM.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.beijingeastip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/RC-DM.png\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/04\/guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-iii\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Guest Post: Well-Known Mark Recognitions in China \u2013 Part III\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/\",\"name\":\"China IP Law Update\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#organization\",\"name\":\"China IP Law Update\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/cropped-China-IP-Law-Update-Logo-for-website-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/cropped-China-IP-Law-Update-Logo-for-website-1.png\",\"width\":240,\"height\":81,\"caption\":\"China IP Law Update\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/person\/cd3c63c8dfee9e4c102809b921868bc5\",\"name\":\"Aaron Wininger\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/2a4c57b1fc56e213ed27e140da54c8a1\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/China-IP-Law-Blog-Square-96x96.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/China-IP-Law-Blog-Square-96x96.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Aaron Wininger\"},\"description\":\"Aaron Wininger is a Principal and Director of the China Intellectual Property at Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner.\",\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/aaron-wininger\/\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/aaron-wininger-135113\/\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/author\/aaron-wininger\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Guest Post: Well-Known Mark Recognitions in China \u2013 Part III - China IP Law Update","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/04\/guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-iii\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Guest Post: Well-Known Mark Recognitions in China \u2013 Part III - China IP Law Update","og_description":"This is the third guest post in a 4-part series regarding Chinese well-known trademarks by Yan Zhang,\u00a0Feifei Bian\u00a0& Austin Chang of Beijing East IP. The first part is available\u00a0here and the second here. In Part II of this series, we shared our representative cases on how to apply the concept of anti-dilution for the protection of a well-known trademark in administrative trademark litigations. In Part III, we selected our representative cases to further illustrate how the courts apply well-known mark ...","og_url":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/04\/guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-iii\/","og_site_name":"China IP Law Update","article_published_time":"2021-04-15T23:22:50+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/www.beijingeastip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/RC-DM.png"}],"author":"Yan Zhang, Feifei Bian & Austin Chang","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Yan Zhang, Feifei Bian & Austin Chang","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/04\/guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-iii\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/04\/guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-iii\/"},"author":{"name":"Aaron Wininger","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/person\/cd3c63c8dfee9e4c102809b921868bc5"},"headline":"Guest Post: Well-Known Mark Recognitions in China \u2013 Part III","datePublished":"2021-04-15T23:22:50+00:00","dateModified":"2021-04-15T23:22:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/04\/guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-iii\/"},"wordCount":1843,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/04\/guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-iii\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.beijingeastip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/RC-DM.png","articleSection":["Trademarks"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/04\/guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-iii\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/04\/guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-iii\/","url":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/04\/guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-iii\/","name":"Guest Post: Well-Known Mark Recognitions in China \u2013 Part III - China IP Law Update","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/04\/guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-iii\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/04\/guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-iii\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.beijingeastip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/RC-DM.png","datePublished":"2021-04-15T23:22:50+00:00","dateModified":"2021-04-15T23:22:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/04\/guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-iii\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/04\/guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-iii\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/04\/guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-iii\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.beijingeastip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/RC-DM.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.beijingeastip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/RC-DM.png"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/04\/guest-post-well-known-mark-recognitions-in-china-part-iii\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Guest Post: Well-Known Mark Recognitions in China \u2013 Part III"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/","name":"China IP Law Update","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#organization","name":"China IP Law Update","url":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/cropped-China-IP-Law-Update-Logo-for-website-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/cropped-China-IP-Law-Update-Logo-for-website-1.png","width":240,"height":81,"caption":"China IP Law Update"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/person\/cd3c63c8dfee9e4c102809b921868bc5","name":"Aaron Wininger","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/2a4c57b1fc56e213ed27e140da54c8a1","url":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/China-IP-Law-Blog-Square-96x96.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/China-IP-Law-Blog-Square-96x96.jpg","caption":"Aaron Wininger"},"description":"Aaron Wininger is a Principal and Director of the China Intellectual Property at Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner.","sameAs":["http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/aaron-wininger\/","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/aaron-wininger-135113\/"],"url":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/author\/aaron-wininger\/"}]}},"co_authors":["1302"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1310"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1310"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1310\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1311,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1310\/revisions\/1311"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1310"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1310"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1310"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=1310"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}