Translated by Ms. Haoyu Feng, Lawyer of Chofn IP
On December 14th, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court held a press conference to report on the progress of the special trial on curbing malicious trademark registration and announced ten typical cases of curbing such registrations. We have made full translations of the released cases as follows.
Beijing Intellectual Property Court Typical Cases of Curbing Malicious Trademark Registration
- Case One: Filing a large number of trademark applications within a short period and failing to prove bona fide intent of use or provide other legitimate reasons constitutes "malicious registration without the purpose of use" as referred to in Article 4.1 of the Trademark Law.
[Keynote of the Judgment]
Entities applying to register trademarks should have a genuine intent of use, with the purpose of meeting their own trademark usage needs. The act of applying to register a trademark should be reasonable and legitimate. To determine whether the application for a trademark falls under the circumstances specified in Article 4.1 of the Trademark Law, factors such as the number of trademarks filed by the applicant or individuals, legal entities, and other organizations associated with them, the designated classes, trademark transaction records, the industry and business conditions of the applicant, and the similarity between the applied-for trademark and others with a certain level of fame should be considered. If an applicant files a large number of trademarks in a short period, covering goods or services across multiple classes, significantly exceeding normal production and operational needs, and cannot prove a genuine intent of use or other legitimate reasons, it should be recognized as a malicious registration without the purpose of use.
[Case Overview]
The disputed trademark "王子" ("Prince") was applied for registration by a certain liquor company on May 14, 2021, with designated use in class 33 for rice wine, alcoholic beverages (excluding beer), and other goods. The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) deemed that the application for registration of the disputed trademark violated the provisions of Article 4.1 of the Trademark Law and consequently rejected the application.
After first-instance trial proceedings conducted by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, it was verified that the liquor company was established on August 26, 2020, with registered business operations covering liquor sales, food sales, and daily necessities sales. The company had applied for a total of more than 340 trademarks covering goods or services in multiple classes, including classes 3, 18, 32, 33, and 35. Notably, during the period from 2020 to 2021 alone, the company had applied for more than 300 trademarks. The Beijing High People's Court, in the second-instance trial, additionally clarified that among the 300-plus trademarks applied for by the liquor company, there were those similar to others, including the trademark "迈巴赫" ("Maybach in Chinese").
Both the first and second-instance courts concluded that the evidence in the case failed to prove the actual usage of the disputed trademark and could not demonstrate that the liquor company had genuine intent of use or other legitimate reasons. Considering the time span, quantity of applications, designated goods and services, etc., it was determined that the company's behavior of applying for a large number of trademarks, including the disputed trademark, went beyond the normal scope of business operations and constituted the situation specified in Article 4.1 of the Trademark Law as “malicious trademark registration application without the purpose of use.”
- Case Two: Registration of a Trademark Similar to a Prior-Used Trademark on similar goods by Current or Former Legal Representatives, Senior Executives, or Other Personnel with Knowledge of the Prior Use, in Violation of Article 15.2 of the Trademark Law.
[Keynote of the Judgment]
The "other relationships" stipulated in Article 15.2 of the Trademark Law refer to specific relationships beyond those defined in Article 15.1, where it is known that the applicant has an obligation to proactively avoid conflict with the prior user. This includes relationships such as relatives, labor relations, or proximity of business addresses between the trademark applicant and the prior user. If the current or former legal representatives, senior executives, or other personnel of the trademark applicant have worked for the prior user, it constitutes the "other relationships" specified in this clause. Knowingly registering a trademark similar to the one used by another party on similar goods, based on the aforementioned relationships, violates Article 15.2 of the Trademark Law.
[Case Overview]
The disputed trademark was applied for registration by an educational company on March 16, 2018, with approved use in Class 41 for training, education, conference arrangement, and organization of meetings. The China National Intellectual Property Administration deemed that the registration of the disputed trademark did not constitute the circumstances referred to in Article 15.2 of the Trademark Law of 2013 but violated the provisions of Article 32 of the same law. Therefore, the disputed trademark was declared invalid for training and education services but maintained for other approved services.
After first-instance trial proceedings conducted by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, it was established that the “发树”("Fashu" in Chinese) logo, hereinafter referred to as "Fashu" logo, had been used by a certain academy and had acquired a certain fame before the application date of the disputed trademark. The disputed trademark and the "Fashu" logo used by the academy constituted similar marks. Moreover, the approved services of the disputed trademark, such as "arranging and organizing meetings" and "organizing cultural activities," were similar to the academy's actual services, such as opening ceremonies and MBA education training. The academy had a labor relationship with the former legal representative of the educational company, HE by surname. Despite being aware of the academy's prior use of the "Fashu" logo, the educational company still applied for registration of the disputed trademark for similar services, thereby constituting the circumstances specified in Article 15.2 of the Trademark Law of 2013. After the issuance of first-instance ruling, no party appealed, and the ruling became effective.
- Case Three: Where a mark containing a geographical indication is applied for registration but the applicant could not prove that its goods come from the region protected under the geographical indication, the use of the mark shall be regarded as likely to confuse the public.
[Keynote of the Judgment]
The provisions in the Trademark Law regarding the protection of geographic indications (GIs) aim to prevent the misleading of the public when a trademark containing a GI is used on goods not originating from the region indicated by that GI. This ensures that the specific quality, reputation, or other characteristics of goods bearing a trademark with a GI are primarily determined by the natural or cultural factors of the region indicated by the GI. If there is no evidence proving that the goods originate from the protected area of the GI, and the application for registration of a trademark containing the GI proceeds, the use of such a trademark should be considered likely to mislead the public.
[Case Overview]
The disputed trademark "老鹰茶" ("Eagle Tea") was applied for registration by a tea company on April 20, 2015, with designated use in Class 30 for "tea" and other goods. The China National Intellectual Property Administration adjudicated that the registration of the disputed trademark violated the provisions of Article 16.1 of the Trademark Law of 2013 and declared it invalid.
After first-instance trial proceedings conducted by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, it was established that on July 31, 2012, the original General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine approved "老鹰茶" ("Eagle Tea") as a nationally protected GI product. The protected area of this GI includes six townships, namely Meiluo, Fengle, Wajiao, Caoke, Liziping, and Xinmian, which are currently under the jurisdiction of Sichuan Province's Shimian County.
The first-instance court concluded that the evidence in the case indicated that "老鹰茶" ("Eagle Tea") had been approved as a nationally protected GI product before the application date of the disputed trademark. The protected area of this GI includes six townships, including Meiluo Township in Shimian County. As a type of tea, the taste and quality of "老鹰茶" ("Eagle Tea") are closely related to its growing environment. The tea company is located in Chengdu, Sichuan Province, and its processing technology guidance for "老鹰茶" (black tea) is in Qionglai City, Sichuan Province. The evidence in the case was insufficient to prove that the tea products using the disputed trademark "老鹰茶" originated from the six townships in Shimian County, Sichuan Province. Therefore, the use of the disputed trademark was deemed likely to mislead the public, creating a false impression about the origin of the goods. Consequently, the registration of the disputed trademark violated the provisions of Article 16.1 of the Trademark Law of 2013. The first-instance judgment dismissed the tea company's lawsuit, and the Beijing Higher People's Court upheld the original judgement in the second-instance trial.
- Case Four: The titles of influential TV columns and programs constitute prior rights under Article 32 of the Trademark Law. Applying for similar or identical marks by squatting these titles on similar or identical goods shall be prohibited under Article 32.
[Keynote of the Judgment]
TV columns and programs carry the characteristics of goods. Titles of influential TV columns and program fall under the category of the "names of goods with a certain influence" as defined in Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and fall within the protection scope of the "prior right" as stipulated in Article 32 of the Trademark Law. Therefore, the applicant’s squatter of a trademark identical or similar to others’ TV columns or program titles with a certain influence on the same or similar goods may lead the relevant public to mistakenly believe that there is a specific connection between the applicant and the prior right owner. This constitutes the situation specified in Article 32 of the Trademark Law, namely, “damaging the existing prior rights of others.”
[Case Overview]
The disputed trademark “远方的家深度旅游顾问Journey Ahead”("Journey Ahead, a Deep Travel Consultant for Distant Homes") was applied for registration by a certain cultural industry company on March 5, 2014, designating its use on goods such as periodicals, books, and news publications in Class 16. The China National Intellectual Property Administration held that the registration of the disputed trademark violated the provisions of Article 32 of the Trademark Law, namely, "harming the existing prior rights of others is prohibited" and therefore decided not to approve the registration of the disputed trademark.
After the first-instance trial by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, it was determined that "Journey Ahead" is a large daily travel program broadcasted by the CCTV Chinese International Channel. The evidence in the case proved that the program "Journey Ahead" had started broadcasting before the application date of the disputed trademark and was known to the relevant public. It had formed a strong correspondence with CCTV. CCTV owned prior rights to the title "Journey Ahead" as a name of goods. The disputed trademark included the program title "Journey Ahead," constituting a similar sign to a name of goods with a certain influence. Based on the actual use of the disputed trademark by the cultural industry company, whose magazine "Journey Ahead, a Distant Home," is closely related to the content of the "Journey Ahead" program. The use of the disputed trademark is likely to lead the relevant public to mistakenly believe that the magazine is provided by or has an associated relationship with CCTV, resulting confusion and misrecognition of the origin of the goods. Therefore, the registration of the disputed trademark violates the provisions of Article 32 of the Trademark Law regarding " harming the existing prior rights of others is prohibited." In conclusion, the cultural industry company’s request was rejected under the first-instance judgment. No party appealed, and the first-instance judgment became effective.
- Case Five: Where a trademark applicant, aiming to unfairly occupy public resources, applies for public event terms, names of public cultural resources as trademarks in a large number, it constitutes a situation of “obtaining registration by other unfair means” under Article 44.1 of the Trademark Law.
[Keynote of the Judgment]
The phrase "obtaining registration by other unfair means" in Article 44.1 of the Trademark Law refers to trademark registration activities that disrupt the order of trademark registration, harm public interests, unjustly occupy public resources, or seek undue benefits through means other than deceptive practices. The trademark applicant’s extensively filing of trademarks related to public event terminology and names of public cultural resources demonstrates its subjective intention of the unjust occupation of public resources. Such behavior should be recognized as falling within the circumstances specified in Article 44.1 of the Trademark Law.
[Case Overview]
The disputed trademark "泉城百花园" ("Quancheng Baihuayuan") was applied for registration by Applicant LI on March 6, 2020, designating its use in Class 45 for services such as clothing rental and matchmaking. The China National Intellectual Property Administration deemed that the registration of the disputed trademark violated the provisions of Article 44.1 of the Trademark Law and thus declared the invalidity of the disputed trademark.
Following the first-instance trial at the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, it was determined that " Quancheng Baihuayuan " is the name of a pastoral complex project operated by the Zhujiayu company. The disputed trademark " Quancheng Baihuayuan " is identical to the project name. In addition to the disputed trademark, LI also applied for registration of over 170 trademarks on various goods and services, including "方舱" ("Fangcang"), "逆行者" ("Frontliner"), "火神山" ("Huoshenshan"), "雷神山" ("Leishenshan"), "章邱古城" ("Zhangqiu Ancient City"), "泉乡药谷" ("Quanxiang Yaogu"), among others, many of which are related to pandemic prevention or are similar to names of projects developed in Zhangqiu District, Ji’nan City. LI's aforementioned actions clearly exceeded normal commercial purposes, violated the principle of good faith and credit, disrupted the normal order of trademark registration management, and harmed the market environment of fair competition. Therefore, the registration of the disputed trademark has constituted the circumstances specified in Article 44.1 of the Trademark Law regarding "obtaining registration by other unfair means." In conclusion, LI’s request was rejected in the first-instance judgment. No party appealed, and the first-instance judgment became effective.
- Case Six: Where a trademark agency, in order to circumvent the law, applies for trademark registration in the name of its former senior executive, the application may be regarded as the agency’s conduct and shall be regulated under Article 19.4 of the Trademark Law.
[Keynote of the Judgment]
Article 19.4 of the Trademark Law explicitly specify scenarios where trademark agencies’ registration of trademarks is prohibited. The legislative purpose is to protect public interests, prevent trademark agencies from taking advantage of their familiarity with the trademark registration process or leveraging their advantages to maliciously register others' trademarks for profit, and disrupt the order of trademark registration. Prohibiting trademark agencies from adopting the names of entities with specific relationships to them to apply for trademark registration aligns with the legislative purpose of this provision. To regulate the chaotic situation where certain trademark agencies assist or directly engage in malicious applications and hoarding, and to maintain a sound market economic order and trademark administration order, the behavior of a trademark agency using the name of its former senior executive to apply for trademark registration is considered an act of the trademark agency and is subject to the constraints of Article 19.4 of the Trademark Law.
[Case Overview]
The disputed trademark "步步高" ("BuBuGao") was applied for registration by Applicant YAO on July 4, 2019, with designated use in Class 29 for goods such as snacks mainly consisting of fruits and vegetables, pickled fruits, and wood ear mushrooms. The China National Intellectual Property Administration deemed that the registration of the disputed trademark violated provisions including Article 19.4 of the Trademark Law and declared the invalidity of the disputed trademark.
After the first-instance trial by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, it was verified that a certain intellectual property agency was established in 2012, and YAO was a former shareholder and senior executive of the agency. Approximately 20 days before the application date of the disputed trademark, starting from June 14, 2019, YAO no longer held a senior management position in the agency.
The first-instance court held that while YAO was not a trademark agency, he had a specific relationship with the trademark agency. Moreover, the majority of the 60-plus trademarks in respect of various categories of goods and services under YAO's name were mostly filed by the said trademark agency. Simultaneously, several trademarks under YAO's name were being offered for sale on a trademark trading platform. Considering the comprehensive evidence, it can be determined that the registration of the disputed trademark was an act of the trademark agency using YAO’s name, in order to circumvent the law. YAO's trademark registration behavior is considered an act of the trademark agency, violating the principle of good faith, and is subject to the constraints of Article 19.4 of the Trademark Law. Therefore, YAO’s request was rejected in the first-instance judgment. No party appealed, and the first-instance judgment became effective.
- Case Seven: Regarding the malicious cross-category registration of others’ well-known trademarks in the online environment, factors such as the subjective malice of the applicant and the highly overlapping consumers of the relevant goods or services should be fully considered. It is essential to rationally determine the scope of cross-class protection for well-known trademarks.
[Keynote of the Judgment]
When determining whether a trademark in the online environment constitutes a well-known trademark, the characteristics and speed of information dissemination in the mobile internet environment, the establishment and reach of brand influence, and various elements of well-known trademark recognition should be thoroughly considered. The duration of trademark usage should not be considered in isolation or mechanically. In cases of malicious cross-class squatter of others’ well-known trademarks in the online environment, the subjective level of malice of the applicant and the degree of overlap of consumers of the goods or services should be fully considered. It is crucial to reasonably determine the scope of cross-class protection for well-known trademarks and enhance regulatory measures against malicious registration activities.
[Case Overview]
The disputed trademark "快手老铁" ("Kuaishou Laotie") was applied for registration by a certain liquor sales company on August 29, 2017, with designated use in Class 35 for "accounting" services. The cited trademark, "快手及图" ("Kuaishou & device"), was granted registration to a certain information technology company on November 14, 2015, with designated use in Class 41 for "program production, entertainment," among other services. The China National Intellectual Property Administration deemed that the registration of the disputed trademark did not violate the provisions of Article 13 of the Trademark Law and ruled to maintain the registration of the disputed trademark.
After the first-instance trial by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, it was established that, based on the evidence, the trademark "快手 & device " owned by the information technology company had been extensively and publicly used before the application date of the disputed trademark. It had gained widespread recognition among the relevant public and constituted a well-known trademark used on "program production, entertainment," and other services. The disputed trademark, "快手老铁," ("Kuaishou Laotie") included the distinctive identifying text "快手" (Kuaishou) in its entirety, and "老铁" (Laotie) was also a trademark registered and used by the said information technology company. Therefore, the disputed trademark constituted a reproduction and imitation of the "快手 & device" trademark. Although the disputed trademark was designated for "accounting" services, which differed from the "program production, entertainment" services, considering that services such as "program production" are mainly directed towards video creators within the Kuaishou platform and "entertainment" services target regular viewers, given Kuaishou's extensive user base of nearly 700 million, making it an almost nationwide short video platform, it is inevitable that the target audience for the "accounting" services overlaps with the audience for the aforementioned services. Additionally, due to the massive traffic on the Kuaishou platform, entities engaged in "accounting" services may also advertise through the platform, creating a potential connection between the contents of services. Consequently, when the relevant public sees the disputed trademark used on "accounting" services, it is prone to establish a significant connection with the "快手& device" trademark, mistakenly believing that the services originate from the information technology company or have a specific connection, thereby weakening the distinctiveness of the well-known trademark and causing harm to the legitimate interests of the information technology company. Therefore, the registration of the disputed trademark falls within the circumstances specified in Article 13.3 of the Trademark Law and should be invalidated accordingly. After the first-instance judgment, no party appealed, and the first-instance judgment became effective.
- Case Eight: When a party, being aware of significant defects in the rights granted to its registered trademark but still, with the main purpose of gaining undue commercial benefits and harming others' legitimate interests, issues warning letters and files complaints with industrial and commercial authorities against others, such behavior constitutes a serious violation of the principle of good faith and amounts to the misuse of trademark rights.
[Keynote of the Judgment]
The application and use of trademarks should adhere to the principle of good faith. When a trademark registrant is aware of significant defects in the rights granted to its registered trademark but still, with the main purpose of gaining undue commercial benefits and harming others' legitimate interests, issues warning letters and files complaints, such behavior constitutes a serious violation of the principle of good faith and amounts to the misuse of trademark rights. The registrant should bear legal responsibility for compensation for the necessary expenses incurred by the aggrieved party in safeguarding its legitimate rights and responding to the registrant's misuse of trademark rights.
[Case Overview]
A tourism company filed a lawsuit, asserting that a technology company, despite being aware of the popularity of the tourism company’s enterprise name and unregistered trademark "古北水镇" ("Gubei Water Town"), still applied to registration of the trademark "古北水镇" for goods in Class 33, such as alcoholic beverages, and in Class 25 for clothing. The technology company subsequently sent infringement warning letters to the tourism company and filed a trademark infringement complaint with the industrial and commercial authorities, demanding that the tourism company cease using the trademark "古北水镇" on the packaging of its alcoholic products. The actions of the technology company infringed on the legal rights of the tourism company, hindered the legitimate application for the registration of the trademark "古北水镇," disrupted the order of trademark registration, and violated the principle of good faith. Therefore, the tourism company brought the case to court, seeking a judgment to compel the technology company to compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 500,000 yuan, as well as the publication of a statement to eliminate the impact.
After a second-instance trial by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, it was determined that the technology company, with knowledge of the unfairness of its application for registration of the trademark "古北水镇" and the significant defects in the legal basis of the granted registration, still exercised the exclusive rights of the trademark with the primary purpose of gaining undue commercial benefits and harming the legitimate interests of others. The actions of the technology company seriously violated the principle of good faith and constituted unfair competition through the misuse of trademark rights. The tourism company’s necessary expenses incurred in response to the technology company's misuse of trademark rights, in order to safeguard its legitimate rights, was direct economic losses resulting from the aforementioned actions. In accordance with the law, the technology company should bear the responsibility for compensation. Therefore, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court upheld the first-instance judgment of the Dongcheng District People's Court in Beijing, rejecting the appeal in the second instance.
- Case Nine: Where a party, against the principle of honesty and credibility, acquires trademark right without good faith, and sues the fair user for trademark infringement, it shall constitute abuse of right.
[Keynote of the Judgment]
The acquisition and exercise of trademark rights should adhere to the principle of good faith. If a party, in violation of the principle of good faith, initiates a lawsuit based on trademark rights acquired in bad faith, claiming infringement against another's legitimate use, such behavior disrupts the fair competition order in the market and constitutes an abuse of rights. In such cases, the legal support for the party's lawsuit should be denied.
[Case Overview]
Plaintiff MA filed a lawsuit asserting that on May 6, 2008, he/she applied for registration of the trademark "jiaoren骄人" in Class 14 for jewelry and accessories. The registration was approved on March 28, 2010, and MA had been using the trademark to produce and sell a series of "jiaoren骄人" brand diamonds. MA discovered that a certain jewelry company was selling rings and necklaces bearing the "骄人" brand in its store on the JD.com platform. MA believed that the actions of the jewelry company and JD.com infringed on his/her trademark rights. Therefore, MA filed a lawsuit, requesting the court to order the jewelry company and JD.com to immediately cease infringement and compensate MA for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 50,000 yuan.
After a second-instance trial by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, it was determined that, considering factors such as the distinctiveness and similarity of the involved marks, MA's subjective intent in applying for registration of the "jiaoren骄人" trademark, the actual use of the marks, and MA's application for registration of other trademarks, it could be concluded that MA's application for registration of the "jiaoren骄人" trademark violated the principle of good faith, and his claim lacked legitimacy in this case. At the same time, a prior effective judgment had already determined that an affiliated company of the jewelry company had been using "骄人" as a product name before MA’s application for the trademark "jiaoren骄人". Based on this, MA's earlier lawsuit was dismissed. Now, MA initiated this lawsuit again for the same reason, claiming that the jewelry company was selling the "jiaoren" series of diamonds on the JD.com platform. Subjectively, MA's actions could hardly be considered in good faith, and the evidence in the case was insufficient to prove MA's genuine intention or factual use of the "jiaoren骄人" trademark. MA's initiation of a trademark infringement lawsuit and demands for compensation against the jewelry company, which was legitimately using the "jiaoren" mark, constituted an abuse of rights. Therefore, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, in the second-instance judgment, rejected the appeal, upholding the first-instance judgment of the Xicheng District People's Court in Beijing.
- Case Ten: Where the infringing party, targeting the prior name brand of the right holder, engages in "comprehensive" imitation across various aspects, including trademarks, product packaging, promotional slogans, and sales methods, and engages in "genuine and fake mixed sales," showing clear subjective malice in attaching itself to the reputation of the right holder, which has caused serious consequences, punitive damages shall apply.
[Keynote of the Judgment]
The "brand effect" is comprehensive and complex, not confined to a single trademark. Every aspect of a company's production and operation can serve as a carrier of brand reputation. Therefore, different from infringement actions targeting a single trademark, "comprehensive" brand imitation inflicts greater damage to the brand image and rights. Specific patterns of such infringement may include registering and using trademarks similar to the right holder's, copying packaging and decoration, selling "genuine" and "imitation" products together, and using misleading promotional slogans. For serious infringements targeting a prior name brand in a "comprehensive" manner, punitive damages should be applied. This not only benefits the protection of the legitimate rights of the right holder and the rights of consumers but also contributes to the establishment of an honest and orderly market competition order.
[Case Overview]
A certain liqueurs company is the trademark owner of the "野格" (YEGE) series trademarks, which are designated for use in Class 33 for goods such as liquor. The company argued that another alcoholic company, without permission, used marks similar to its trademarks, such as "野格哈古雷斯" ("YEGE HAGULEISI") and "野格狩猎者" ("YEGE SHOULIEZHE"), on goods such as "liqueurs, beer, functional beverages." The infringing alcoholic company also copied its product packaging and decoration, used easily misleading promotional language, constituting infringement of its trademark rights and unfair competition. The infringing company should bear legal responsibilities, including ceasing infringement, eliminating the impact, and compensating for losses.
After the first-instance trial by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, it was determined that the "野格" series trademarks of the plaintiff liqueurs company had become well-known for liqueur products in China through long-term promotion and use. The infringing company, without permission, used marks similar to the plaintiff's trademarks, such as "YEGE" and "野格狩猎者," on goods like " liqueurs, beer, functional beverages." Moreover, it imitated the packaging and decoration of the plaintiff's similar products, used easily misleading promotional slogans, and mixed the infringing products with the plaintiff's similar products for sale. These actions infringed upon the plaintiff's registered trademark exclusive rights and constituted unfair competition. Despite the plaintiff's multiple rights protection statements and warning letters, the infringing company continued its infringement, demonstrating clear intent of infringement. Based on these facts, punitive damages should be applied to the actions of the infringing company. In conclusion, the first-instance judgment ordered the infringing company to cease infringement, eliminate the impact, and compensate the plaintiff for economic losses amounting to 10 million yuan. After the first-instance judgment, the infringing company appealed, but the Beijing Higher People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
