CCPIT Patent & Trademark Law Office (CCPIT) recently secured a favorable judgment for a leading German furniture hardware manufacturer in a trademark invalidation dispute before the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. The Court ruled that the third party’s mark “HIDSHI” constituted bad-faith free-riding on the German company’s core trademarks and fell within “registration obtained by other improper means” under Article 44.1 of the Chinese Trademark Law. The victory effectively eliminates the squatted mark targeting the client's core brand and strongly protects its goodwill and market rights.

The disputed mark "HIDSHI" was registered in 2015 for goods including metal hinges and household metal sliding rails. Notably, the registration had already passed the five-year statutory deadline for invalidation based on relative grounds. During the litigation stage, the CCPIT team comprehensively reviewed the facts of the case and developed a precise litigation strategy. Addressing the objective circumstances that the disputed mark had been registered for over five years and that the third party held only a limited number of trademarks, the team built a complete argumentation system from key dimensions to fully reconstruct the chain of the third party's deliberate imitation and persistent "brand-hitching" conduct.

The Court accepted the arguments presented by CCPIT at trial and ruled that the registration of the disputed mark constituted "registration obtained by other improper means" and should be declared invalid according to law. This case overcame the limitations of the mark having been registered for over five years and the registrant holding a relatively modest trademark portfolio, clarifying that for malicious registration conduct involving persistent free-riding on famous marks, the absolute invalidity provision may be applied to regulate such conduct, providing an important reference for brand owners to combat long-term, concealed brand-hitching behavior.

CCPIT Patent & Trademark Law Office has been providing intellectual property services for 70 years. Leveraging extensive experience in handling complex trademark cases, the firm successfully defended its client's core trademark rights through precise strategy formulation and solid evidence organization. This case once again demonstrates CCPIT's professional strength in complex trademark administrative litigation.

Looking ahead, CCPIT will continue to uphold its fine traditions and its motto, "Enriching Your Ideas," while adhering to more specialized, refined, and international legal service standards. The firm remains fully committed to safeguarding the intellectual property rights of both Chinese and foreign enterprises.

The "Mozart & Device" trademark invalidation case, handled by CCPIT Patent and Trademark Law Office (CCPIT), achieved a final victory on appeal. The Beijing High People's Court ruled that the registration constituted "registration by other improper means" under Article 41(1) of the 2001 Trademark Law. The Court revoked the first-instance judgment and the original CNIPA decision, and ordered the CNIPA to issue a new invalidation ruling, thereby safeguarding the client's legitimate rights.

The disputed mark, “Mozart & device”, was filed in 2011 and registered on massage apparatus, medical instruments and apparatus, and other goods in Class 10. The mark was originally registered by Beijing Vigor Medical Equipment Co., Ltd. and later assigned to Jilin Beethoven Technology Co., Ltd.

The CCPIT trademark team developed a systematic litigation strategy and evidence collection plan focused on the core elements of "other improper means", targeting the mass bad faith filings, serial assignments, and continuous hoarding of musician-name trademarks by affiliated parties.

During proceedings, CCPIT argued that the original registrant had filed in batches marks identical or highly similar to names of renowned musicians such as "Beethoven", "Chopin", and "Mozart", and then transferred all of them on the same day to the current registrant, which shares a common controlling shareholder. After the assignment, the current registrant continued to file additional trademarks of the same type. Such conduct clearly exceeded normal business needs and improperly occupied public resources for unfair gain. In response to the opposing party's defense of actual use, we made full preparations and arguments.

The second-instance court accepted our arguments and reversed the first-instance judgment and the challenged decision.

CCPIT is about to celebrate its 70th anniversary of providing IP services. With extensive experience in complex trademark cases, the firm has successfully protected its clients' rights and earned high recognition, once again demonstrating its professional strength. Going forward, CCPIT will continue its fine traditions, "Enriching Your Ideas", and adhere to specialized, refined, and international legal service standards, fully committed to safeguarding IP protection for Chinese and foreign enterprises.

The client, a manufacturer of sports-related products, faced a bad-faith trademark and business name registration by an infringer operating eyewear product through multiple entities. Confronted with the opposing party’s valid trademark registration—which blocked the client’s product launch and constrained its business strategy, the team advised a comprehensive litigation strategy combining trademark invalidation, infringement litigation, and simultaneous new trademark applications.

Despite the challenge of limited evidence regarding the client’s notoriety, the team proactively gathered evidence and precisely coordinated parallel proceedings, ensuring these procedures reinforced one another to achieve a comprehensive victory. In the administrative proceedings, the CNIPA and two-instance courts swiftly invalidated the opposing party’s trademark. In the civil litigation, assets totalling CNY 2.5 million belonging to the opposing company and individuals were successfully preserved. The final judgment ordered the defendants to cease using the infringing trademark and business name, holding the company and its individuals jointly liable for CNY 2,000,000 in damages.

This case is a typical example of how our firm represented a client’s interests with a comprehensive litigation strategy, through a dual-track approach of administrative and civil procedures.

In a trademark infringement lawsuit, we represented the plaintiff and filed a civil litigation against four defendants.

Through strategic on-site investigations, we located the defendants to secure a favourable forum, a position that proved advantageous from jurisdiction through to damages determination. During litigation, the defendants argued "legitimate use" based on their own registered trademarks and claimed the requested damages were excessive.

The team systematically cited precedent judgements from the Supreme People’s Court and various local courts and successfully refuted the defendants’ "legitimate use" defence. To determine the compensation amount, we overcame the difficulty of limited evidence of the client’s trademark rights usage, by conducting in-depth investigations and presenting the court with two approaches to calculate infringement profits, adequately demonstrating the significant scale of the defendants' illicit gains.
Ultimately, the court of first instance fully supported our claims. It ordered the defendants to jointly bear liability for infringement and awarded the client compensatory damages and reasonable expenses totalling over CNY 600,000, achieving a highly favourable result.
The successful outcome of this case demonstrates the team's sophisticated competence in trademark enforcement. They think strategically and act practically.