Recently, the Supreme People’s Court rendered retrial judgments in three administrative dispute cases involving trademark registration application reexamination refusals between Farasis Energy (Ganzhou) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Farasis Energy”) and the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA).In all three cases, the Court revoked the previous first-instance and second-instance judgments as well as the CNIPA’s reexamination refusal decisions, and ordered the CNIPA to re-examine the trademark registration applications involved.As the entrusted litigation agent for Farasis Energy, Beijing Caihe Law Firm played a key role throughout the process, providing professional legal services to remove obstacles to the enterprise’s trademark registration.
In Case No. (2025) Supreme Court Administrative Retrial 282, with respect to Farasis Energy’s “FUNENG” trademark (No. 51903195, designated for use in Class 39 services), the legal team focused on the core controversy of the status of the cited trademark rights. It actively adduced evidence proving that the sole cited trademark in the case had been declared invalid and announced by the CNIPA, and thus no longer constituted an obstacle to the registration of the disputed trademark, providing crucial factual support for the reversal of the case.
In Case No. (2025) Supreme Court Administrative Retrial 283, concerning Farasis Energy’s “FUNENG” trademark (No. 51903235, designated for use in Class 42 services), the team accurately sorted out the case context. On the one hand, it proved that Cited Trademark I had been declared invalid; on the other hand, it clarified the approved scope of services of Cited Trademark II, confirming that part of the designated services of the disputed trademark were not similar to those of Cited Trademark II, which strongly facilitated the Court’s impartial judgment.
In Case No. (2025) Supreme Court Administrative Retrial 300, regarding Farasis Energy’s “FUNENG” trademark (No. 51872929, designated for use in Class 9 goods), the team continuously tracked the status of the cited trademarks and successfully adduced evidence of the critical facts that Cited Trademark I had been declared invalid and Cited Trademark IV had been revoked, completely removing registration obstacles for the disputed trademark on various goods.
In the application of law, the Caihe legal team accurately cited relevant provisions of the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on the Trial of Administrative Cases Involving Trademark Authorization and Confirmation, and clearly argued that “after the cited trademark lapses, the grounds for the CNIPA to refuse the disputed trademark no longer exist”. This professional argument was recognized by the Supreme People’s Court and became an important legal basis for the revision of judgments in the three cases.
The victory in the retrial of these three cases has not only cleared obstacles for the protection of Farasis Energy’s “FUNENG” brand rights in Class 9 goods, Class 39 and Class 42 services, but also fully demonstrated the professional strength of Beijing Caihe Law Firm in the field of intellectual property administrative litigation.
