By Xiaoxue Xiang
The Supreme People’s Court has issued a significant decision in the administrative retrial over the invalidation of the “Meiyue Licheng” trademark. This judgment clarified how to determine whether trademarks are similar and likely to cause confusion, offering important guidance for trademark law enforcement and fair market competition.
Background of the Case
In 2018, Licheng Technology Co., Ltd. applied to register the “美樾丽呈” (“Meiyue Licheng”) trademark for services in Class 43, including hotel management and restaurant services.
However, Licheng Hotel Management Co., Ltd. had already registered the “丽橙酒店” (“Licheng Hotel”) trademark in 2010 for Class 43 services.
Licheng Hotel argued that the two trademarks were too similar and filed a request to invalidate the newer one under Article 30 of China’s Trademark Law. The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) agreed and ruled the new trademark invalid. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court upheld this ruling, but the Beijing High Court later overturned it, saying the two trademarks were clearly different. This led to a retrial before the Supreme People’s Court.
Key Points from the Supreme Court’s Judgment
In its decision (2024 Supreme Admin Retrial 303), the Court ruled that the “Meiyue Licheng” trademark should remain invalid. The Court’s reasoning included the following:
1. Trademark Similarity Should Be Judged Primarily Based on Objective Resemblance
The Court emphasized that the main basis for judging similarity is how an average consumer perceives the marks in terms of pronunciation, appearance, and meaning. In this case:
“丽呈” (Licheng) and “丽橙” (Licheng) sound nearly identical in Mandarin and look similar in writing.
Although “美樾” (Meiyue) was added in front of “丽呈” (Licheng), the main part of the mark is still “丽呈”(Licheng), which is highly similar to the earlier mark’s key element “丽橙”(Licheng).
Trademark similarity must be judged based on the mark’s appearance, not on how well-known it has become later through use.
Therefore, the marks were found to be similar, regardless of any popularity gained by the newer one after registration.
2. The Timing of Evidence on Trademark Fame Is Crucial
Evidence of a trademark’s reputation must relate to the time before or at the point of registration. Most of the evidence provided for “Meiyue Licheng” (such as marketing materials and contracts) came after the earlier “Licheng Hotel” trademark was already registered.
According to the principle of protecting earlier rights, what matters is whether there was a likelihood of confusion at the time of registration, not later. The newer mark had not yet established significant market recognition at that point, so the later-acquired fame could not change the similarity assessment.
3. Additional Elements in a Trademark Must Be Substantive to Offset Similarity
The Court also found that the added “Meiyue” part did not have strong distinctiveness in the hospitality sector and could not change how consumers perceived the overall mark. Even with design elements, the dominant impression remained similar to “Licheng Hotel”.
Given the average attention level of consumers and the tendency to view trademarks in isolation, there remained a clear risk of confusion.
Legal Significance
1. Clearer Standards for Applying Article 30 of the Trademark Law
This case provides concrete guidance on applying Article 30, which prohibits registration of marks that are identical or similar to existing ones in the same or similar classes. It confirms that:
Objective similarity in sound, appearance, and meaning is key.
Later reputation or weak distinctiveness of the earlier mark cannot override this similarity.
2. A More Structured Approach to Assessing Likelihood of Confusion
The judgment aligns with the Supreme Court’s judicial interpretation on civil trademark disputes. It confirms that:
Trademark comparison should consider the general public’s awareness.
Both the overall mark and its main components must be compared.
Visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarities should be judged in isolation.
This creates a balanced framework that focuses on objective characteristics while also factoring in fame and distinctiveness appropriately.
3. Correcting the Misconception That Popularity Can Excuse Similarity
The decisionrejects the idea that a trademark can overcome similarity issues just by becoming famous later. It reinforces that a business cannot use later success to avoid the legal consequences of copying an earlier trademark.
This helps protect the rights of prior trademark holders and encourages responsible branding.
Key Takeaways for Businesses
1. Conduct Thorough Searches and Risk Assessments Before Registering
Before applying for a trademark, businesses should use professional tools or services to search for similar marks in related categories. Risk assessments should consider legal standards for trademark similarity to avoid potential invalidation.
2. Focus on Originality in Trademark Design
Companies should prioritize original and distinctive designs that don’t rely on common industry terms or resemble existing marks. This improves both recognition and legal protection.
3. Manage and Collect Trademark Use Evidence Properly
If a company wants to prove its trademark’s reputation, it should collect valid evidence early on—before the registration date. This includes advertising materials, contracts, awards, etc., across various regions and platforms.
Conclusion
The “Meiyue Licheng” case provides clear and practical guidance on trademark similarity and confusion. It sets a standard for courts, trademark examiners, and businesses, and contributes to the development of a more predictable and fair trademark protection system in China.