By Hansen Tao
When companies seek trademark protection in China, most disputes focus on conflicts with earlier trademarks, trade names, or well-known brands. Less commonly discussed is another category of protected symbols: official signs that represent governmental authority, public certification, or official control.
These signs occupy a unique position in trademark law.
A recent dispute involving the well-known Danish butter cookie brand Danisa highlights the complexities of protecting foreign official signs in China and illustrates how international treaties interact with domestic trademark law.
Why Official Signs Receive Special Protection
Chinese Trademark Law prohibits the registration and use of signs that are identical or similar to official symbols indicating governmental control, inspection, certification, or guarantee, unless authorization has been obtained.
The rationale is straightforward.
This principle applies not only to Chinese official signs but also, under certain circumstances, to official signs originating from foreign countries.
The Dispute Over the Danish Crown
The case centered on a trademark used for butter cookies that incorporated a crown design together with references to Denmark.
A challenge was filed arguing that the crown element resembled the symbol associated with the Danish Royal Warrant system, which identifies products and businesses that have received authorization from the Danish Royal Household.
The dispute therefore raised an important legal question.
Was the Danish crown entitled to protection in China as an official sign under Article 10(1)(4) of the Chinese Trademark Law?
If so, could the trademark be invalidated because of its similarity to that official symbol?
Understanding the International Framework
The answer required the courts to look beyond Chinese law and consider international treaty obligations.
This process serves an important purpose.
Businesses operating in other countries must be able to identify which foreign symbols enjoy special legal protection. Without a notification and publication mechanism, trademark applicants would have difficulty determining whether a particular symbol is protected abroad.
As a result, procedural requirements play a significant role in determining whether a foreign official sign can receive protection in China.
A Key Question: Was the Crown Registered as an Official Sign?
One of the most important issues in the case was the legal status of the Danish crown itself.
This distinction proved significant.
The protection mechanisms for state emblems and official certification signs are not identical. A symbol may be important at a national level while still not qualifying as the type of official sign contemplated by Article 10(1)(4) of the Chinese Trademark Law.
The court therefore examined not only the existence of the symbol but also the specific legal category under which it had been notified internationally.
The Importance of Notification and Publication
Another critical issue concerned publication in China.
The appellate court noted that the Danish crown had not been included in the official announcements published by the China National Intellectual Property Administration regarding foreign official signs communicated through the international notification system.
This point highlights an often-overlooked aspect of international trademark protection.
Similarity Still Matters
Even if a foreign official sign qualifies for protection, a trademark will not automatically be refused.
Chinese authorities must still evaluate whether the trademark and the official sign are identical or sufficiently similar to create the type of confusion that the law seeks to prevent.
In the Danish crown dispute, the appellate court concluded that the differences between the trademark and the crown symbol were significant enough that they did not constitute identical or similar signs for purposes of Article 10(1)(4).
The court observed that crown designs are common elements found in many countries' official insignia and commercial branding. The mere presence of a crown in a trademark does not automatically create a prohibited association with a particular official symbol.
As a result, the court rejected the argument that the trademark violated the provision concerning official signs.
A Broader Lesson for Brand Owners
The case provides important guidance for businesses operating internationally.
First, not every government-related symbol automatically receives protection in China as an official sign. The legal classification of the symbol and compliance with international notification procedures can be decisive.
Second, procedural requirements matter. A foreign government or institution seeking protection in China generally cannot rely solely on evidence of domestic recognition. International notification and public disclosure mechanisms often play a central role.
Third, similarity analysis remains essential. Even where a protected official sign exists, trademark authorities must carefully evaluate the overall appearance and commercial impression of the competing signs.
Looking Ahead
Chinese courts are increasingly required to address disputes involving foreign governmental symbols, certification marks, and official designations.
For foreign rights holders, the decision underscores the importance of ensuring that official signs are properly notified and published through the relevant international channels.
For businesses seeking trademark protection in China, the case offers reassurance that courts will not simply presume protection based on a foreign symbol's reputation. Instead, they will examine whether the legal requirements for protection have actually been satisfied.
Ultimately, the decision reflects a broader principle of trademark law: legal certainty requires both substantive rights and transparent procedures. Even symbols associated with governments and royal institutions must satisfy the applicable legal framework before receiving protection in another country.
Lawyer Comments