By Xiaoxue Xiang 

In late November, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) announced the invalidation ex officio of six registered trademarks owned by Shanghai Yaochao Company, including “要潮人民咖啡馆” (Yào Cháo Rénmín Kāfēiguǎn, meaning Yaochao People’s Café), “潮人民咖啡馆” (Cháo Rénmín Kāfēiguǎn), and “爱人民咖啡馆”( Ài Rénmín Kāfēiguǎn), covering services in Class 43 (cafés) and Class 35 (advertising and promotion).

Notably, all of the trademarks had passed preliminary examination and were successfully registered. However, after the brand expanded its physical stores and gained significant “internet-famous” traction on social media platforms, regulatory authorities proactively intervened.

From an operational perspective, the brand’s stores prominently featured red as the dominant color, combined with five-pointed stars and slogan-style visuals. Through social media marketing, the brand encouraged “check-in” culture, deliberately reinforcing associations with public attributes and mainstream value symbols. 

Public debate over the legitimacy of using the term “People” (人民) in a commercial context ultimately prompted CNIPA to initiate ex officio invalidation proceedings.

The core dispute in this case was not a traditional trademark similarity conflict, but rather the permissible boundaries of commercial use of specific terms, the standards for determining violations of public order and morality, and the balance between trademark rights and public interest. The case highlights China’s dual-track trademark governance logic, combining registration examination with post-registration use supervision.

Under China’s trademark legal framework, the registrability of words is closely linked to their semantic attributes and usage context. The term “People” carries strong political connotations and public symbolic meaning, placing it among highly sensitive terms. As a result, its commercial use is subject to far stricter scrutiny than ordinary wording.

Pursuant to Article 10(1)(7) and (8) of the Trademark Law, signs that are deceptive or likely to mislead the public regarding the nature or qualifications of the subject, or that are detrimental to socialist morals or have other adverse effects, may not be used as trademarks. 

Registered trademarks violating these provisions may be declared invalid ex officio under Article 44, forming the legal basis of this case.

In practice, CNIPA applies a “dual-dimension and highly cautious” approach to trademarks containing the word “People.” Such trademarks are not absolutely prohibited, but must satisfy extremely high compliance standards. The main legal risks include:

In light of the factual context, the invalidation of the “People’s Café” trademarks was foreseeable, primarily due to:

1. Disconnection Between Registered Form and Actual Use

Trademark legality is premised on standardized use. However, the brand’s storefronts emphasized “People’s Café” while downplaying modifying elements, contradicting the original composite registration and significantly increasing confusion and adverse impact. Such “substantive non-compliant use” became a key factor in CNIPA’s intervention.

2. Substantive Standards for Distinctiveness 

Distinctiveness must be assessed in light of actual use. Where the core element itself carries public attributes, adding modifiers does not necessarily create genuine distinctiveness. This constitutes “illusory distinctiveness” and may be deemed registration obtained by improper means, falling squarely within Article 44 invalidation grounds.

A key institutional highlight of this case is CNIPA’s proactive exercise of its ex officio invalidation power, which differs fundamentally from invalidation proceedings initiated by third parties.

From a regulatory standpoint, the initiation of ex officio invalidation was supported by:

The trademark’s use posed potential harm to public value perception and social order, transcending private rights disputes. The misuse of “People” blurred the line between public and commercial spheres and required priority regulation.

The brand employed modifiers and fragmented registrations to bypass examination, while deliberately highlighting the controversial element in actual use. Such conduct aligns with behaviors targeted under CNIPA’s enforcement against bad-faith circumvention.

The process reflected a governance mechanism of “public opinion monitoring, clue verification, targeted enforcement,” rather than passive regulatory response.

Importantly, ex officio invalidation renders trademark rights invalid ab initio, meaning all investments and brand value built upon the invalidated trademarks may effectively be erased, making it far more punitive than opposition or cancellation procedures.

The “People’s Café” case offers highly practical lessons for both domestic and cross-border brands, emphasizing the need to move beyond the misconception that “registration equals safety” and toward full-process compliance.

Strengthen Dynamic Compliance Monitoring 

Trademark validity is affected by use behavior, public interest, and regulatory developments. Even registered trademarks may be invalidated if their use violates public order or morality. Brands should implement ongoing compliance monitoring, particularly for sensitive elements.

Cautious Evaluation of Highly Sensitive Terms

Words such as “People,” “National,” and “China” require advance compliance assessment, not only clearance searches but also scenario-based evaluation of public perception and regulatory response. Professional compliance opinions are strongly recommended.

Standardized Use of Composite Trademarks

Registered composite trademarks must be used consistently. Deliberately highlighting controversial elements while weakening modifiers undermines the legal foundation of trademark rights. Design strategies should reinforce overall distinctiveness, supported by complete use evidence.

Balancing Internet Popularity with Compliance Boundaries

When leveraging public symbols or trending elements to build internet-famous brands, legal risk must take precedence over traffic appeal. Short-term attention cannot replace long-term compliance. Brands should establish an integrated mechanism covering creative design, legal review, and risk contingency planning.

Align with Regulatory Policy to Avoid Bad-Faith Findings

In line with CNIPA’s intensified crackdown on bad-faith filings, brands must abandon evasive applications and trademark hoarding, adhering to the principle of good faith. Regulatory policies provide for strict measures, including invalidation and credit penalties.

The invalidation of the “People’s Café” trademark series reaffirms a core principle of China’s Trademark Law: trademarks are not merely commercial identifiers, but legal tools for maintaining market order and safeguarding public interest. Their legitimacy rests on respecting public order and morality, avoiding harm to public interest, and preventing public deception.

Against the backdrop of China’s intellectual property strategy shifting from “quantity-first” to “quality-first,” brand innovation must operate within legal and public-value boundaries: sustainable brand value is not built by appropriating public symbols or chasing short-term traffic, but on legality, good faith, and public trust. 

Only by balancing creative expression with legal limits can brands achieve a virtuous cycle of value creation and intellectual property protection, avoiding the compliance trap of “created by creativity, destroyed by creativity.”