On April 19, 2022, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) issued three Decisions on Invalidation Requests: 商评字 [2022] No. 0000214192, 商评字 [2022] No. 0000214193, and 商评字 [2022] No. 0000214194, declaring the following trademarks owned by Farasis Group Co., Ltd. invalid:No. 28321986 “孚能电池”；No. 42986883 “孚能”；No. 42977124 “孚能”These decisions supported the invalidation requests filed by Farasis Technology Ganzhou Co., Ltd.
Beijing Caihe Law Firm was retained by Farasis Technology Ganzhou Co., Ltd. to act as the agent for the invalidation applicant in the above trademark invalidation proceedings.
Key highlights of the case:
(1) The evidence submitted by the applicant, Farasis Technology Ganzhou Co., Ltd., proves that, before the filing date of the disputed trademarks, the applicant’s trade name “孚能” was known among the relevant public within a certain scope in connection with goods such as power batteries, and a relatively close and specific association had been established between the trade name and the applicant. The respondent, as an operator in the same industry, should have been aware of this. The disputed trademark “孚能电池” wholly contains the applicant’s enterprise trade name “孚能” and does not form any other meaning sufficiently distinct from it. Moreover, the goods covered by the disputed trademark, such as batteries, are closely related to the applicant’s power batteries in terms of sales channels and consumer base, and thus constitute similar goods. This similarity is likely to cause the relevant public to associate the disputed trademark with the applicant, thereby harming the applicant’s trade name rights. Consequently, the registration of the disputed trademark falls within the situation described in Article 32 of the Trademark Law as “infringing upon another party’s existing prior rights.”
(2) Before the filing date of the disputed trademark, the applicant’s “孚能” power batteries had acquired a certain reputation in the industry, and the respondent, as an operator in the same industry, should have been aware of this. Under these circumstances, the respondent applied to register dozens of highly distinctive “孚能” series trademarks in relevant goods or services. Such conduct demonstrates obvious bad faith and an intention to improperly exploit the goodwill of others for illegal gain, disrupting the order of trademark registration administration. This constitutes the situation referred to in Article 44(1) of the Trademark Law as obtaining registration “by other improper means.”
