Abstract: The provision on the principle of good faith in Article 7 of the current Trademark Law specifically implements the paramount clause of civil law, thereby harmonizing the interests of trademark right holders with public interest. This article analyzes the application and practice of the principle of good faith through a practical case.

Case Details

(I) Basic Information

Opposed Party: Quanzhou Chengyang Technology Co., Ltd.

Opposed Trademark: Trademark No. 41297448 "Wanlihong"

Case Result: Trademark registration not approved

(II) Case Process

"Wanlihong" is the core trademark of Beijing Wanlihong Technology Co., Ltd. Through years of use, it has gained a certain degree of recognition within the industry. Beijing Wanlihong Technology Co., Ltd. is a high-tech enterprise established in 2001, specializing in the research and development of basic software, integrated information systems, information security and confidentiality, iris biometric recognition, e-government, and artificial intelligence.

The opposed party, Quanzhou Chengyang Technology Co., Ltd., has applied for registration of over 100 trademarks, 94 of which are completely identical to the trade names and trademarks of other enterprises in the same industry.

Upon investigation by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), the opposed trademark is "Wanlihong," designated for use in Class 35 services such as "advertising." In addition to the opposed trademark in this case, the opposed party has also applied for over 120 trademarks in different classes, including several trademarks identical to the trade names of other companies. Some of these applications have been rejected, and others have been opposed by relevant right holders. Accordingly, the opposed party's application to register the opposed trademark demonstrates a clear intent to copy and imitate others' trademarks. This not only is likely to cause confusion among relevant consumers regarding the source of the services but also harms the market order of fair competition, violating the principle of good faith. In accordance with Articles 7, 30, and 35 of the Trademark Law, it was decided that Trademark No. 41297448 "Wanlihong" shall not be registered.

Case Analysis

In the above case, the CNIPA applied Articles 7 and 30 of the Trademark Law. Article 30 of the Trademark Law states: Where a trademark applied for registration does not conform to the relevant provisions of this Law, or is identical with or similar to the trademark of another person that has, in respect of the same or similar goods, been registered or preliminarily approved, the Trademark Office shall refuse the application and shall not publish the said trademark. To constitute a situation under this article, the following three requirements must be met simultaneously: 1. The disputed trademark is identical or similar to the cited trademark in its sign; 2. The goods or services designated for use by the disputed trademark constitute identical or similar goods or services to those for which the cited trademark is approved; 3. The coexistence of the disputed trademark and the cited trademark on identical or similar goods or services is likely to cause confusion among the relevant public.

In the "Wanlihong" trademark case, the CNIPA also considered that the goods/services designated for use by the opposed trademark and those of the cited trademark did not constitute similar goods/services, and thus did not constitute similar trademarks on similar goods/services. That is, strictly speaking, the opposed trademark did not meet the circumstances stipulated in Article 30 of the Trademark Law. However, because it violated Article 7, it was ruled not registrable.

During the opposition review of this trademark, the CNIPA held that the opposed trademark "Wanlihong" in Class 35 and the cited trademark did not constitute similar trademarks used on similar goods/services. However, the textual composition of the opposed trademark was completely identical to that of the opposer's trademark.

The opposed party had also applied for over 120 trademarks in different classes, including several identical to the trade names of other companies. Some applications had been rejected, and others had been opposed by relevant right holders. Accordingly, the opposed party's application to register the opposed trademark demonstrated a clear intent to copy and imitate others' trademarks. This not only is likely to cause confusion among relevant consumers regarding the source of the services but also harms the market order of fair competition, violating the principle of good faith. In accordance with Articles 7, 30, and 35 of the Trademark Law, it was decided that the trademark shall not be registered.

From a practical perspective, the above situation may occur during trademark examination and opposition stages but is less common during review and court litigation. Regarding this situation, some viewpoints hold that when a disputed trademark indeed demonstrates bad faith, violates honesty and credibility, and existing specific legal provisions cannot be applied, the competent authority, proceeding from the perspective of combating bad faith, can in practice apply Article 7 of the Trademark Law alone during examination to regulate such acts. This leverages the principle of good faith's role as a safety net against malicious registrations, filling legal gaps. As a fundamental principle of civil law, the principle of good faith has effects such as thorough validity and mandatory provisions in the civil field. The provision on the principle of good faith in Article 7 of the current Trademark Law specifically implements the paramount clause of civil law, thereby harmonizing the interests of trademark right holders with public interest.