By Xiaoxue Xiang
The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has recently issued a widely noted decision, officially invalidating a service trademark that copied the architectural image of the Guangfulin Cultural Relics Site in Shanghai.
This ruling not only rejects attempts to free-ride on the recognition of cultural heritage through trademark registration but also reflects China’s sustained efforts to safeguard cultural heritage and crack down on malicious trademark squatting. It adds another important precedent to the growing practice of protecting cultural heritage through intellectual property law.
The significance of this case extends well beyond the invalidation of a single trademark. It illustrates the practical intersection between Trademark Law and Copyright Law in cultural heritage protection, while also showcasing the increasing sophistication of China’s trademark examination system.
More importantly, the decision takes a clear stance against the commercial exploitation of public cultural resources, underscoring the principle that “cultural heritage cannot be privatized, and cultural value cannot be commercially misused.”
Background: A Trademark Rooted in Cultural Symbols
The disputed mark was registered in Class 35, covering services such as advertising and product marketing. Its core graphic element directly derived from the architectural design of the Guangfulin Cultural Exhibition Hall, a landmark structure within the Guangfulin Cultural Relics Park, a nationally protected heritage site.
Contested Trademark - Source: China Trademark Network
Owing to the site’s historical significance and years of tourism promotion, the building has become a widely recognized visual symbol for the public.
The applicant, as the official management authority of the Guangfulin Cultural Relics Site, filed an invalidation request with CNIPA, raising three main arguments:
1. Infringement of Prior Copyright
The applicant claimed copyright over the architectural design of the Guangfulin Cultural Exhibition Hall. Since the disputed mark used the building’s appearance without authorization, it infringed upon existing copyright rights, violating the provision against damaging prior rights.
2. Risk of Consumer Confusion
Given the building’s public familiarity and official association, using its image in services like advertising could mislead consumers into believing that the services were endorsed or authorized by the cultural site’s management, disrupting the source-identifying function of trademarks.
3. Bad-Faith Trademark Registration
The applicant highlighted that the registrant had also filed multiple other marks related to “Guangfulin” and similar cultural symbols, indicating no genuine business need but rather a deliberate attempt to monopolize public cultural resources.
Key Legal Issues and CNIPA’s Findings
1. Copyright Infringement of Cultural Works
CNIPA confirmed that the disputed trademark’s graphic was substantially similar to the Guangfulin Exhibition Hall’s design, which had already been used in official materials and registered for copyright protection.
The building design constitutes a copyrightable work under the Copyright Law, fulfilling the requirements of originality and reproducibility.
The applicant had access to the original design since the building was long open to the public.
Substantial similarity was established, as the disputed mark lacked independent creativity and overlapped with the original design in key visual elements.
Thus, CNIPA held that the disputed mark infringed upon prior copyright, violating Article 32 of the Trademark Law.
2. Deceptive and Misleading Trademark
Under Article 10(1)(7) of the Trademark Law, trademarks must not deceive or mislead the public.
CNIPA ruled that:
The disputed mark closely resembled the landmark building’s appearance.
The building had gained broad public recognition as a cultural symbol.
Consumers could easily mistake services under the mark as officially connected with the Guangfulin Cultural Relics Site.
This clarified the legal boundary: cultural heritage elements are public resources, not commercial assets for private exploitation.
3. Bad-Faith Registration and Abuse of Rights
CNIPA emphasized the registrant’s malicious intent:
Filing not only the disputed mark but also multiple applications for other Shanghai cultural landmarks.
Lack of genuine business activity, instead exploiting public cultural identity for private gain.
Such conduct violated Article 44 of the Trademark Law, which prohibits bad-faith registration and misuse of others’ established marks.
Broader Significance and Insights
1. Cultural Heritage as an IP Asset
This case shows that heritage landmarks such as iconic buildings can qualify as copyright-protected works if they meet originality and reproducibility standards. It dispels the misconception that public cultural resources are “ownerless” simply because they are state-managed.
2. Stricter Trademark Examination Standards
The decision demonstrates China’s evolving review approach, which now includes:
Assessing similarity with copyright-protected cultural works.
Evaluating public recognition of heritage symbols to prevent consumer confusion.
Investigating applicant behavior for patterns of bad-faith filings.
3. Warning Against Bad-Faith Registrations
The ruling signals strong deterrence: malicious attempts to register cultural heritage symbols without authorization or real commercial use will not only fail but may also affect the applicant’s broader credibility in trademark filings.
Conclusion: Balancing Trademark Protection with Public Interest
At its core, this case reflects the balancing act between protecting business trademarks and preserving public cultural heritage.
By invalidating the disputed mark, CNIPA reaffirmed that trademarks are not merely tools of commercial competition but also instruments carrying social responsibility. They must respect cultural heritage, uphold public trust, and follow the principle of good faith.
For trademark applicants and IP practitioners, the message is clear: formal distinctiveness is not enough. When it comes to cultural heritage, legality also depends on respect for public resources and ethical boundaries.
This case sets a strong precedent for future conflicts at the crossroads of IP law and cultural heritage protection.