HOME > English > Insights > Trademark

Trademark Department 
Linda Liu & Partners

 
I. Introduction

Article 31 of China Trademark Law stipulates: An application for the registration of a trademark shall not create any prejudice to the prior right of another person, nor unfair means be used to pre-emptively register the trademark of some reputation another person has used. The first half of this article stipulates that an application for the registration of a trademark shall not create any prejudice to the prior right of another person. Since the Trademark Law stipulates in detail the protection to prior trademarks in other articles, “prior rights” in Article 31 mainly refers to other prior rights, including copyright, name right, trade name right, design right, portraiture right, etc.

At present, it is common that the trademark filed for registration is in conflict with the prior rights of another person as evidenced in cases of trademark opposition, review of opposition, dispute, administrative and civil cases. Article 31 of the Trademark Law provides a legal basis for the rightful owner against the trademark right through other prior rights. This article analyzes the conflict between trademark rights and copyright and name rights using several case examples. (This article will not include other prior rights which will be discussed in our future articles).

II. Case analysis of prior copyright against trademark right

Copyright refers to right originating from the creation of literary, artistic, scientific, engineering works, etc. The infringement of a copyright refers to the use of another person’s work without authorization from the copyright owner and without legal basis. Generally, the infringement of a copyright may divided into four categories: infringing personal right of a copyright, infringing property right of a copyright, infringing neighboring rights of a copyright and infringing publishing right of a copyright. In trademark opposition, review of opposition, dispute, administrative and civil cases, the infringement of a copyright usually refers to the infringement of the property right of a copyright. Using several case examples, the following part will situations when the trademark filed for registration infringes a prior copyright.

1. Cases

Case No.1: SANYO ELECTRIC CO., LTD. (hereafter referred to as “SANYO Company”) VS. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (hereafter referred to as “TRAB”)

(1) Administrative procedure

Chendu Linto Industrial Co., Ltd (hereafter referred to as Linto Company) filed a trademark application for “” No.1189067 in Class 12 on May 30, 1997. SANYO Company filed an opposition after the mark was published. The main arguments raised by SANYO Company in the opposition were: that the device of the opposed mark is an imitation of the cited marks and that it constituted a similar mark with cited marks on similar goods. The Trademark Office (hereafter referred to as CTMO) held that the opposed mark is different from cited mark 1 and cited mark 2 in the composing letters, pronunciation and meaning. Thus, they did not constitute similar trademarks. The designated goods of the opposed mark and those of cited mark 3 are different, and would not cause confusion and misunderstanding among consumers. Therefore, the CTMO decided that the arguments raised by SANYO Company were untenable and the trademark No. 1189067 was approved for registration.


 

(2) Lawsuit

SANYO Company was dissatisfied with decision made by TRAB and appealed to the Beijing No.1 Intermediate Court. In the lawsuit, SANYO Company submitted the copyright registration certificate issued by the State Copyright Administration in China. The Beijing No.1 Intermediate Court did not support the argument that the opposed mark constituted a similar mark with the cited marks on similar goods raised by SANYO Company. With regard to whether the opposed mark infringed the prior copyright of SANYO Company, Beijing No.1 Intermediate Court determined as follows and reversed the decision made by TRAB on December 18, 2007.
 

①The device “” is composed of a black trapezium in the middle and several black lines displayed on the right and left side of the trapezium. The device as a whole has a strong three-dimensional effect, which is obviously different from the common letters in print. It indicates the intellectual efforts of the creator. Thus, “” should be protected as an artistic work by Copyright Law in China.
 

②To prove prior copyright over “”, SANYO Company submitted the Entrustment Agreement of “” device in opposition and submitted the copyright registration certificate as supplemental evidence in the lawsuit. Though the certificate was not submitted in the opposition and review as a piece of evidence to strengthen the Entrustment Agreement, the TRAB accepted it and this court accepted it as supporting evidence of SANYO Company’s prior copyright over “”. Moreover, “” device which SANYO Company claimed prior copyright is the device of the cited mark No.1012496. The application date of this cited mark is December 26, 1997 and the exclusive right started from May 21, 1997, which was earlier than May 30, 1997, the application date of the opposed mark. Therefore, this court determined that SANYO Company enjoyed prior copyright over “”.    
 

③Comparing “” and the “N” device of “”,there is basically no difference between the two parts and they are identical devices. Without authorization from SANYO Company, Linto Company used the device in the opposed mark, which infringed the prior right of SANYO COMPANY, and the opposed mark shall not be registered.  
 

Case No.2: Inoue Planning Co., Ltd. (hereafter referred to as “Inoue Company”) VS. TRAB

(1) Administrative procedure

Shengqu Info Tech Co., Ltd (hereafter referred to as Shengqu Company) filed a trademark application for trademark “灌篮高手” (Slam Dunk in Chinese characters) No. 3438625 in Class 41 designating “game services provided on-line (from a computer network)” on January 17, 2003.

Inoue Company filed a dispute requesting to cancel this mark on January 28, 2006. Inoue Company argued that its representative Takehiko Inoue enjoyed copyright over comic book Slam Dunk. “灌篮高手” is a well-known trademark of Inoue Company. The disputed mark is identical with the name of the comic book Slam Dunk, which infringed the applicant’s prior right. The TRAB held that to obtain copyright protection for the name of a work, the name should comply with the conditions prescribed by Copyright Law, that is, intellectual work which is of originality and can be reproduced through a certain physical form. Though the disputed mark is identical with the name of the comic book in composing characters, “灌篮高手” is only a term for basketball players who are good at slam dunks. It belongs to the category of language and words that the public can use freely and it does not enjoy originality required by written works and thus, is not a written work prescribed by Copyright Law. Meanwhile, the disputed mark is represented in print and it is not a situation of infringing another person’s artistic work. Therefore, the TRAB did not support Inoue Company’s claim of prior copyright and decided that the disputed mark shall be maintained.

(2) Lawsuit

Inoue Company was dissatisfied with decision made by TRAB and appealed to the Beijing No.1 Intermediate Court. With regard to the issue of this case, the Beijing No.1 Intermediate Court held that the comic book Slam Dunk is of originality. However, the name of the work, “灌篮高手” is a commonly used word and it does not have the originality required by the written work and is not a written work prescribed by Copyright Law. Inoue Company does not enjoy copyright over the four characters and thus upheld the decision made by the TRAB.

2. Legal analysis:

In first case above, the claim of prior copyright by SANYO Company was not supported by the TRAB, but supported by the court in the lawsuit. In the second case, the claim by Inoue Company was not supported by both the TRAB and court. We will analyze the two cases from the following aspects:

(1) Definition of copyrighted works

As mentioned above, copyright refers to a right originating from the creation of literary, artistic, scientific, engineering works, etc. Article 3 of China Copyright Law stipulates clearly that works include the following forms:
 

①written works;

②oral works;

③musical, dramatic, quyi, choreographic and acrobatic works;

④works of fine art and architecture;

⑤photographic works;

⑥cinematographic works and works created by virtue of an analogous method of film production;

⑦drawings of engineering designs, and product designs; maps, sketches and other graphic works and model works;

⑧computer software;

⑨other works as proscribed in laws and administrative regulations.
 

Article 2 of the Implementation Regulations of Copyright Law (hereafter referred to as “Implementation Regulations”) stipulates: works prescribed in Copyright Law refers to the intellectual works of originality in the filed of literature, art and science and can be reproduced through a certain physical form. “Originality” is the core of works prescribed in this Article and it is the substantive condition of whether a work can be protected by Copyright Law. Article 4 of the Implementation Regulations provides a more detailed explanation of works prescribed by Article 3 of Copyright Law: written works refer to fiction, poem, prose, thesis, etc. represented in writing and artistic works refer to painting, calligraphy, sculpture, etc. represented in graphic or stereoscopic design of aesthetic meaning and composed of lines, colors or other forms.  

Comparing the above two cases, even though both SANYO Company and Inoue Company claimed copyright, we can see that the definition of work caused obviously different results. In the first case, the TRAB denied that “” is an artistic work of Copyright Law. However, the court recognized that it indicated intellectual efforts of the creator and can be protected as an artistic work by Copyright Law. Basically there was no difference between the opposed mark and the device of SANYO Company and they were considered to be identical devices. Therefore, the court held that Linto Company infringed the copyright of SANYO Company. In the second case, the TRAB and the court unanimously  held that the four characters of “灌篮高手”, as the name of the work, did not have the originality required by written works. Thus it is not a written work prescribed by Copyright Law and thus does not enjoy copyright.

The composing elements of a trademark can be words, devices and three-dimensional signs which overlap with works, the subjects of copyright. Consequently, it can cause the conflict between trademark rights and copyrights. In practice, there are many types of conflict between trademark rights and copyrights, mainly manifested in the following ways:

① Conflict between word mark and the name of a work and advertising slogan

“灌篮高手” in the second case belongs to such type. In the administrative lawsuit of this case, even though the court confirmed the copyright of the comic book Slam Dunk, the owner could not fight against the registration of the trademark since the name of the work was determined not to be a subject of copyright. In addition, there are many cases in which the name of a work or the name of a role in the work is filed for a trademark application. For example, after the movie Avatar released, a number of trademark applications for “Avatar” and “阿凡达” (“Avatar” in Chinese characters) were filed for registration. Similarly, the name of the work or the role is not considered a subject of copyright. Meanwhile, since the role is virtual in nature and not a real character, name rights are out of the question. Thus, it is impossible to fight against the trademark right by claiming prior name rights.

② Conflicts between device and three dimensional marks and artistic, photographic and sculpture works

The device of the first case is a graphic artistic work composed of lines and a subject protected by Copyright Law. In practice, in many cases where device marks are in conflict with artistic works, the artistic works can be protected without the limitation of designated goods of the trademark once it is determined that the device marks infringe the prior copyright of the artistic works. 

(2) Conditions applied in the infringement of copyright

Usually, certain conditions need to be complied with to successfully overcome trademark rights based on prior copyright. The Trademark Examination Guidelines summarized the conditions as follows:

① The involved mark is identical with or substantially similar to the copyrighted work;

② The owner of the involved mark has access to be aware or possibly aware of the copyrighted work of another person;

③ Without authorization of the owner of the copyright.

In the first case, the opposed mark wholly contains the “N” device, which is basically identical with the copyrighted device owned by SANYO Company. They are substantially similar. “” and “” owned by SANYO Company are of certain popularity in China. As registered trademarks, Linto Company has the “possibility of access” to be aware of the device. Moreover, Linto Company infringed the copyright of SANYO Company without authorization. The above conditions ①and ② indicate the basic rule in determination of infringement of copyright- “substantial similarity and possibility of awareness”. With regard to condition③, there is no evidence to prove this point in the first case. However, in other cases, if the trademark owner obtains authorization from the copyright owner through legal means, according to Copyright Law and Implementation Regulations, the trademark owner should bear the burden of proof to prove the following points: the applicant of the involved mark signed a copyright license agreement or the copyright owner made direct and explicit manifestation of intention to license the work for trademark registration.

(3) The proof of prior copyright

With regard to prior copyright, the Trademark Examination Guidelines defined it as “before the application date of the involved mark, the copyright obtained through means such as creation, succession or assignment.” The copyright should be valid and within the validity of protection. If the work is expired, then it becomes public and the trademark application and registration will not cause infringement to the copyright.

Prior copyright can be proved by the following materials:

① Copyright registration certificate;

② Materials proving earlier creation of the work;

③ Materials proving earlier publication of the work;

④ Materials proving earlier obtainment of copyrighted work through means of succession or assignment, etc.;

⑤ Without sufficient counter evidence, the fact of prior right confirmed by effective judgments can be recognized.

Copyright is a kind of non-registered intellectual property and it is established from the time when it is created. Usually, it can be proved by ②, ③ and ④ from above. In practice, the precondition of copyright is the existence of work. However, the recognition of the originality of work is very difficult and is beyond the professionalism of trademark administrative authorities (CTMO and TRAB). Usually, in trademark opposition, review of opposition and dispute cases, if the copyright owner can provide the copyright registration certificate mentioned in ① above, or an effective judgment confirmed that the party enjoyed prior copyright and the trademark applicant has no opposition on this point, the evidence is more likely to be accepted by the administrative authorities and courts. Therefore, in present practice, a prior copyright owner usually files for copyright registration. However, if the trademark applicant opposes, it may need to submit one or more materials as mentioned in ②, ③ and ④ above.   

In the first case, SANYO Company submitted the Entrustment Agreement of “” in opposition and copyright registration certificate in the lawsuit to prove the prior copyright.

To sum up, in cases of conflict between copyrights and trademark rights, the prior copyright owner should first confirm whether the subject of copyright it claims complies with the definition in Copyright Law. Secondly, whether or not the case satisfies the above mentioned three conditions should be confirmed. If all the conditions are satisfied, the copyright certificate is the key point and the “possibility of awareness” a supportive point in the collection of evidence. In this way, the trademark right can likely be overcome successfully by prior copyright. With regard to copyright certificate, it is significant to keep the original materials of the creation or publication. Copyright registration is also very convenient for the copyright owner to support its right. 

III. Case analysis of prior name right against trademark right

Name right refers to the right of natural persons to determine, change and use their names. Name rights include formal names registered in the household register and informal names such as stage names and pen names. Article 99(1) of the General Principles of the Civil Law stipulates that: Citizens shall enjoy the right of personal name and shall be entitled to determine, use or change their personal names in accordance with relevant provisions. Interference with, usurpation of and false representation of personal names shall be prohibited. In trademark cases, the infringement of name right mainly manifested as usurpation, that is, file others’ names for trademark application without authorization.

1. Cases

Case No.3: Hangzhou Wahaha Group Co., Ltd. (hereafter referred to “opponent”) VS. Anhui Woyang Wanlu Liquor Co., Ltd. (hereafter referred to as “opposed party”)

The opposed party filed a trademark application for trademark “宗庆后” No.1623365 in Class 32, designating“beer; non-alcoholic beverages; mineral water; etc.” on June 14, 2000. The opponent filed an opposition after the mark was published. The opponent argued that “宗庆后” is the founder and legal representative of the opponent and also a very famous entrepreneur in China who has received a lot of honors and prizes. From the popularity of the opponent’s trademark “娃哈哈” and reports of Mr. Zong Qinghou by media, Mr. Zong Qinghou became a public figure. The trademark registration application for “宗庆后” on designated goods “beverages; mineral water, etc.” filed by the opposed party infringed the name right of Mr. Zong Qinghou. The opposed party argued that it was a coincidence that its trademark is identical with the name of the legal representative of the opponent and the registration of the opposed mark complied with the relevant rules of Trademark Law.  

Through examination, the CTMO considered that Mr. Zong Qinghou, the legal representative of the opponent, enjoyed a name right according to the law. Mr. Zong Qinghou received a lot of honors in the operation of the opponent. Various media reported on Mr. Zong Qinghou and the opponent. According to this, it can be presumed that Mr. Zong Qinghou enjoyed comparatively high popularity in the relevant industry and the opposed party should have been aware of this. The registration of the opposed mark that is identical with the name of Mr. Zong Qinghou filed by the opposed party infringed the prior name right of Mr. Zong Qinghou. Based on this, the CTMO rejected the registration application of the opposed mark.

Case No.4: 黎明 (“Li Ming”in pinyin, a famous Hong Kong actor with English name Leon Lai. “黎明” also means sunrise or daybreak in Chinese. ) VS. Shenyang Liming Motor Co., Ltd. (hereafter referred to as “opposed party”)

The opposed party filed a trademark application for trademark “黎明&device” No. 764111 in Class 36 designating “leasing of real estate; housing agents; factoring” on December 9,1993. The opponent filed an opposition after the mark was published. The opponent claimed that “黎明” enjoyed high popularity in China. The opponent argued the opposed party used the name of the opponent without authorization and infringed the name right of Mr. Li Ming. The opposed party defended that it used “黎明” in its trade name as early as 1957. The trade name changed several times, but kept using “黎明” as part of the trade name. The company used “黎明” as a trademark on its products from 1983 and filed for registration. Regardless of its use, the opposed party’s use is earlier than that of the opponent. “黎明” does not only refer to the name of the opponent, but also has other meanings in Chinese and so it should not be exclusively used by the opponent.

Through examination, the CTMO held that “黎明”, as an actor in China, enjoyed certain popularity. However, according to the Modern Chinese Dictionary, “黎明” refers to sunrise or daybreak. It is a commonly used word and does not belong to the category of creative words. In registered trademarks in China, goods bearing the trademark “黎明” in circulation did not cause misunderstanding among consumers that it is in relation to a particular person. Therefore, the opposition is untenable. 

2. Legal analysis:

In case 3 above, the opposed mark “宗庆后” is identical to the name of the famous entrepreneur Mr. Zong Qinghou. The opposed party should have been aware of the name of Mr. Zong Qinghou. The registration of a trademark, which is identical with the name of Mr. Zong Qinghou, infringed his name right. In case 4, even though the opposed mark is identical to the name of Mr. Li Ming, the famous Hong Kong actor, the trademark did not certainly refer to the name of a person. It had other meanings and was a commonly used word. The use of the trademark by the opposed party was out of goodwill. Therefore, the CTMO decided that the opposed mark infringed the name right of Mr. Zong Qinghou in the case 3 while the registration and use of the opposed mark was not in conflict with the name right in case 4.

(1) Analysis form the conditions applied in the infringement of name right

The Trademark Examination Guidelines stipulates: “Without authorization, where the trademark application for another person’s name which causes or is possible to cause harm to the name right of another person, the involved mark should not be approved for registration or should be cancelled.”

The conditions are as follows:

① The involved mark is identical to the another person’s name;

② The registration of the involved mark causes or is possible to cause harm to the name right of another person.

Another person’s name includes given name, pen name, stage name, courtesy name, etc. “Another person” refers to a live natural person. “Identical” means the trademark is composed of the same characters of another person’s name or is the translation of another person’s name and corresponds to the person according to the knowledge of the public.

To determine whether the involved mark causes harm to another person’s name right, the awareness of the name right’s owner in the public should be considered. The applicant of the involved mark should bear the burden of proof to prove the owner licenses him to use the name. 

Comparing the above two cases, both of the two opposed marks were identical with the names of other persons. The writer believes the main reason of the different results is due to condition ② mentioned above. In case 3, the name of Mr. Zong Qinghou is of certain influence among the public and the name specifically refers to the legal representative of Wahaha Group. Moreover, Mr. Zong Qinghou is of comparatively high popularity in the relevant industry and the opposed party should have been aware of the name. The registration and use of the opposed mark was likely to cause harm to the name right of Mr. Zong Qinghou. Therefore, it constituted infringement to the name right.

However, in case 4, “黎明” does not only refer to the name of Mr. Li Ming, the Hong Kong actor. It had another meaning and did not cause confusion and misunderstanding.  In this way, it was impossible to cause harm to the name right of Mr. Li Ming. Therefore, it did not constitute infringement.

The composing elements of a trademark include words, and a name is a composition of words. It is not a coincidence that the trademark is identical with a person’s name. Therefore, condition ② is very important. If there is irrefutable proof that harm is caused, then it would be easily to presume that infringement occurred. If there is no proof of harm, subjective offense or bad faith may be presumed through the fact that the name right owner is a public figure and of certain popularity in the relevant industry.

At present, in addition to the public figures in China, some names of public figures in foreign countries have also been preemptively filed for registration. For example, trademark No. 4561135 “”infringed the name right of Britney Spears, a famous American pop star and trademark No. 4860647 “” infringed the name right of Mr. Issey Miyake, a famous Japanese fashion designer. The two trademarks were successfully opposed through the opposition procedure. 

(2) The recognition and examination of other unhealthy influence

In practice, the following three circumstances are special since they are protected by name right, but protected based on the recognition that the involved mark undermines the public order or there are other unhealthy influences according to Article 10(1)(ⅷ) of Trademark Law:

① The name of the owner or the interested party of the involved mark is identical with a public figure’s name, but the registration and use of the involved mark will cause unhealthy influence.  

In the Decision of Dispute of Trademark “张学友ZHANGXUEYOU&device” No. 1132643 made by the TRAB (TRAB (2003) No.1247), the involved mark is composed of “张学友”, the corresponding pinyin “ZHANGXUEYOU” and a shadowy portrait with an indiscernible face (as follows), among which “张学友” is the real name of the owner of the applicant who authorized the applicant to use his name for the trademark application. Meanwhile, it is also the name of a famous Hong Kong singer who has long been engaged in a movie, TV and singing career. His movies, TVs and songs were widely spread and welcomed in China. Before the application date of the involved mark, the name was of certain social popularity. From this aspect, both parties enjoyed a name right and thus Article 31 was hardly applied. Considering the popularity of Mr. Zhang Xueyou, the Hong Kong signer, and the close relevance of the designated goods of the involved mark with the performance career engaged by the Hong Kong singer, the TRAB determined that the involved mark is likely to cause confusion and misunderstanding of the source of the goods and cause unhealthy influence on the reputation of Mr. Zhang Xueyou, the Hong Kong signer and thus canceled the registration.



② The involved mark is identical with or closely similar to the famous political figures which is likely to cause unhealthy social influence, for example:

“克林顿” (US former president Bill Clinton), designating on “clothing”;

“萨达姆” (Iraq former president Saddam Hussein), designating on “restaurant”, etc.

In the above examples, the names of political figures were filed for trademark registration. Under such circumstances, even if the name owner fails to file an opposition, the CTMO will usually automatically reject the application based on the fact that the trademark is likely to undermine the public order or there are other unhealthy influences by applying the Article 10(1)(ⅷ) of Trademark Law.

With regard to other famous public figures including those in commerce, entertainment, etc., if the name owner fails to file an opposition, usually the CTMO will not automatically reject the application due to unhealthy influence by applying the Article 10(1)(ⅷ) of Trademark Law.

③ If the involved mark is not completely identical with the name of a famous person, but an imitation which is likely to associate the name of the famous person, for example:

“毕卡索Picaso”, designating on “cosmetics”;

“泻停封”, (“xie ting feng” in pinyin, phonetically similar to “谢霆锋” (Nicholas Tse), a famous Hong Kong entertainer), designing on “laxatives”;

“流得滑”, (“liu de hua” in pinyin, phonetically similar to “刘德华” (Andy Lau), a famous Hong Kong entertainer), designing on “correction fluid”, etc.

In the above examples, the trademarks imitated the names of famous persons. However, they were not identical with the names. The writer thinks that under such circumstances, it is not appropriate to recognize that these trademarks infringed name rights directly. If the name owner files a relevant procedure against these applications, according to the proof provided by the two parties, the writer believes it can be determined whether or not to reject or cancel the applications by applying Article 10(1)(ⅷ) of Trademark Law.

The main reason for conflicts between trademark right and name right is from economic interest. In practice, it is common to apply a trademark application for the name of a famous person. The preemptive registration of the name of a famous person, in one aspect, infringes the name right of the famous person, and it is likely to undermine the reputation or cause economic damage to the famous person. To solve this issue, according to our experience, famous people should have strong sense for trademark defense and protect their names through trademark protection.

Famous people may file trademark applications themselves. In particular, those who are famous in business or entertainment in foreign countries may be quite famous in the relevant industry in foreign countries. However, the public and examiners in China may not be very familiar with them. Under such circumstances, in order to protect their rights, it is better for them to file trademark applications themselves. In China, the examination of trademark applications filed by natural persons is becoming stricter. Trademark Office requires the individual applicant to have an operational entity in filing trademark applications. This requirement in one aspect prevents some of the preemptive registration, but in another aspect can cause inconvenience to the famous people in the protection to their names. However, famous people may authorize other companies (for example agent companies) to file the trademark applications.

China Trademark Law applies the first-to-file principle. Only a registered trademark enjoys exclusive trademark rights. If a famous person files a trademark application for his or her name, the name will be protected in a much broader way through Trademark Law. For example, the gymnastics prince Li Ning registered his name in a number of classes of goods and services after he engaged in business. Both Ms. Yang Lan, a famous media specialist, and Lin Dan, badminton world champion, registered their names as trademarks. In addition, to avoid preemptive registrations, famous people may entrust IP firms to do the monitoring work for the trademarks. As for the published trademarks, oppositions can be filed on time and for those registered ones, other cancellation procedures can be started in order to have protection in the maximum extent.

IV. Summary:

Article 31 of Trademark Law provides a legal basis for the rightful owner against trademark rights through prior rights. The above cases refer to copyrights and name rights. Even though they also belong to a class of intangible assets such as trademarks, due to the different laws and competent authorities, conflict of rights and the possibility for the unlawfully occupying of different forms of intangible assets can arise.

Through the legal analysis of the above cases, the rightful owner may, in one aspect, prevent the preemptive trademark application according to Article 31 of Trademark Law following the conditions summarized by the Trademark Examination Guidelines if their works or name is preemptively registered as trademarks by a third party. In another aspect, the copyright owner or the name owner may file a trademark application for their works or name to obtain a broader protection through Trademark Law.

Reference:

1. China Trademark Law, China Copyright Law, Implementation Regulations of Copyright Law, General Principles of the Civil Law, Trademark Examination Guidelines;

2. Protection to Prior Civil Rights- Review for Cases Applying the Article 31 of Trademark Law by Wang Ze

3. Protection to Prior Name Right by China Trademark Law by Wang Ze

4. Beijing First Intermediate Court Administrative Judgment (2007) No. 1115 (SANYO Company VS. TRAB)

5. Beijing First Intermediate Court Administrative Judgment (2008) No. 1757 (Inoue Company VS. TRAB)

6. Study and Analysis on the System of Trademark Law

7. Trademark Opposition Decision Concerning Trademark “宗庆后” No.1623365

8. Trademark Dispute Decision concerning Trademark “张学友ZHANGXUEYOU&device” No. 1132643（TRAB【2003】No.1247）
 

（2011）