This site makes use of Javascript, please enable your web browser to allow Javascript. Thank you.

Chinese Supreme People's Court to Draft Interpretation on Recognition of Well-Known Trademar…

November 11, 2008

Chinese Supreme People's Court to Draft Interpretation on Recognition of Well-Known Trademarks (for Comments)

The Chinese Supreme People's Court released the Interpretation on Several Questions Concerning the Recognition and Protection of Well-Known Trademarks in Hearing Civil Cases Involving Infringement of Trademark Rights (draft for comments) on November 11, 2008 (the "Draft"). A "draft for comments" is still in the legislative process and is not yet legally valid or enforceable. Although the government may or may not revise the draft, it does, however, illustrate the main structure and contents of the future promulgation. Generally there are two ways to recognize well-known trademarks in the PRC: (i) the administrative route, where well-known trademarks are first reviewed, then evaluated to ensure that there is an underlying dispute by local Administrations for Industry and Commerce and then recognized by the Trademark Bureau and/or Trademark Review Committee; or (ii) the judicial route, where well-known trademarks are recognized by the judgment of a court. Both routes require that the trademark first be infringed upon to merit consideration by the courts, provided that without an underlying dispute, neither the Trademark Bureau nor the Trademark Review Committee will consider recognition of a trademark. The Draft aims to provide a guideline on how to judicially determine a well-known trademark. Under the Draft, if the resolution of the underlying dispute does not require the recognition of a well-known trademark, the court will not make such determination. The Draft also provides that a court may invalidate a well-known trademark that was recognized through the administrative route, if sufficient evidence supports such invalidation.

Copyright ©2009 by Kaye Scholer LLP. All Rights Reserved. Thispublication is intended as a general guide only. It does not contain ageneral legal analysis or constitute an opinion of Kaye Scholer LLP orany member of the firm on the legal issues described. It is recommendedthat readers not rely on this general guide but that professionaladvice be sought in connection with individual matters. Referencesherein to "Kaye Scholer LLP & Affiliates," "Kaye Scholer," "KayeScholer LLP," "the firm" and terms of similar import refer to KayeScholer LLP and its affiliates operating in various jurisdictions.

Also of Interest

Legal Services