by Chenchen Ye
It is well known that trademark law theoretically follows the protection principle of "limited to registered categories." However, in practice, when a mark's reputation far exceeds its registered categories, how should the law respond? A recent ruling by the Jiangmen Intermediate People's Court in Guangdong Province provides a representative answer.
The criticality of well-known recognition
The court first pointed out that the traditional path of trademark infringement analysis did not directly apply in this case, as the involved services were neither identical nor similar under the classification system.
However, the court did not stop at formal classifications. Instead, it further examined the commercial connection between the two industries. E-commerce platforms and logistics services were identified as upstream and downstream links in the supply chain, with a high degree of functional and purposive relevance. From the consumer's perspective, the boundaries between these two types of services are not always clear.
This close functional relationship makes it easy for the public to perceive an association, thereby increasing the likelihood of confusion.
Against this backdrop, combined with evidence provided by the plaintiff regarding its long-term use, market share, and advertising investments, the court recognized that the trademark enjoyed a relatively high degree of fame among the relevant public in China. Accordingly, the "1688" trademark was affirmed as a well-known trademark.
The "Counterattack" of a Numeric Trademark
A key point of interest in this case is that "1688" is essentially a numeric combination. Generally, numbers are considered to have weak distinctiveness as trademarks, especially when used frequently in everyday contexts.
However, the court emphasized that distinctiveness can be acquired through sustained and extensive use. In this case, "1688" had already established a stable correspondence with a specific commercial entity within the e-commerce sector and its related upstream and downstream industries.
Therefore, despite being composed of ordinary numbers, the mark had acquired the clear function of identifying the source of goods or services. The defendant's use of the same numbers in a related field was highly likely to cause consumer association.
The "Ideal and Reality" of Compensation Amount
Another notable aspect of this case is the significant gap between the claimed damages and the awarded compensation. The plaintiff sought 2 million RMB, but the court awarded only 50,000 RMB. This indicates the court's cautious approach in determining the amount. The main considerations were as follows:
The defendant's business scale was small, and the circumstances of the infringement were relatively minor.
The defendant proactively changed its name and shut down the involved website during the proceedings, demonstrating a cooperative attitude.
The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of actual losses suffered or profits gained by the defendant.
Considering these factors, the court ultimately applied statutory damages and determined a relatively moderate compensation amount.
Signals from This Case
This judgment reflects several important trends in Chinese trademark protection practice.
First, courts are increasingly focusing on the actual economic connections between industries when determining the scope of trademark protection, rather than relying solely on formal classification standards.
Second, even seemingly simple signs like numbers can obtain strong legal protection if they establish market recognition through continuous use. By extension, non-distinctive signs like generic terms or descriptive marks can also gain robust protection by proving long-term, extensive, and exclusive use.
Finally, a trademark's fame is a key factor in achieving cross-category protection. When a trademark reaches well-known status, its protection scope can extend beyond its registered categories, providing broader protection against potentially confusing acts.