China SPC confirms mere post-sale confusion can lead to trademark infringement
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

China SPC confirms mere post-sale confusion can lead to trademark infringement

Sponsored by

lifang-400px.png
aditya-chinchure-hyn9au9tm-c-unsplash.jpg

Lei Zhang and Shouqi Guo of Lifang & Partners look at a recent ruling based on the ‘joker’ pattern of poker cards

In China, likelihood of confusion is the condition for recognising trademark infringement, and pre-sale confusion is the general principle. However, there has been dispute whether post-sale confusion shall be considered.

Recently, a retrial case ruled by the Supreme People's Court of China (SPC) extended the determination of the possibility of confusion to post-sale confusion based on the particularity of the product. The SPC held that even if there is no possibility of confusion before sale, it is likely to lead to confusion after sale, it shall be deemed as likelihood of confusion, and trademark infringement can be recognised thereof.

This ruling was issued by the SPC (2020最高法民申4768号), in a declaration for trademark non-infringement litigation brought by Shandong Linyi Kaiyuan Education Equipment Co Ltd (Kaiyuan), against Shanghai Yaoji Playing Cards Co Ltd (Yaoji), the trademark owner. The SPC rejected Kaiyuan's retrial application and confirmed trademark infringement of Kaiyuan.

poker

Identical jokers

In September 2017, Kaiyuan filed a lawsuit with the court, requesting confirmation that Kaiyuan's use of the ‘Joker’ pattern on the poker card, does not infringe on Yaoji's registered trademark No. 3727456. 

The case was heard by the courts of the first instance and the appeal court, with both courts recognising trademark infringement.

Kaiyuan filed retrial to the SPC, claiming that the use of the ‘joker’ pattern on the poker cards shall not constitute a trademark use, and the ‘joker’ pattern cannot be used to identify the source of the goods when consumers purchase the poker cards. 

Upon trial, the SPC rejected Kaiyuan's application, and held that: a deck of poker cards has 54 cards in total, and among them, 52 cards are exactly the same.

Based on consumers' habits of playing poker cards, the patterns on the joker cards are more recognisable and distinguishable. Therefore, the ‘joker’ pattern has the function of identifying the source of poker cards. Consumers may consider that products with the same or similar ‘joker’ pattern on the cards are related to Yaoji when using the cards, which may easily mislead or confuse consumers. Therefore, the patterns used by Kaiyuan on the poker cards and ace cards infringed on Yaoji’s trademark.

The likelihood of confusion

From this ruling of the SPC, it can be seen that even if the likelihood of confusion occurs only after the process of sale, the SPC holds that this is also a confusion in the context of trademark infringement, and trademark infringement recognition can be based on such post-sale confusion. 

While there were already precedents in China that confusion of post-sale was also recognised as likelihood of confusion, the precedents mostly also seek pre-sale confusion as the precondition of recognition of trademark infringement, which reflect the reluctance of the Chinese courts to base the likelihood of confusion solely on the post-sale. In this case, post-sale confusion is the sole condition for recognising trademark infringement, and the SPC confirmed this conclusion by a binding ruling, this could be a significant change on this issue.

Such recognition will obviously be more preferrable to the trademark owners. This also reflects that the Chinese government's determination to increase IP protection has also strengthened international companies' confidence in China's IP protection, which is more conducive to creating a good international business environment.

 

Lei Zhang

Partner, Lifang & Partners

E: leizhang@lifanglaw.com

 

Shouqi Guo

Attorney, Lifang & Partners

E: shouqiguo@lifanglaw.com

 

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The Grand Board said the applied-for mark would ‘trivialise’ one of the deadliest pandemics in history
Tim Chen Saulsbury explains why single-craft artisans inspire him and how, even at home, he’s never too far from another IP lawyer
The firm also plans to build an entertainment practice group and up its IP and antitrust offerings with a focus on foreign clients
An intimate understanding of a client’s sector is essential to winning new business, a survey of over 28,000 corporate counsel reveals
Counsel say a Federal Circuit ruling on the obviousness test for design patents may increase the time IP owners spend defending their rights
With INTA Annual Meeting over for another year, here are a few things Managing IP learned after attending IP’s biggest party
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Four sources reveal which tools they have been using – or building – to help them with a range of tasks from invention generation to claim sufficiency
Managing IP reveals Wednesday's highlights, including a discussion on how AI is helping lawyers improve their "gut instinct" trademark decisions
Managing IP reveals Tuesday’s highlights, including an illuminating discussion celebrating women in the workplace and the challenges that remain
Gift this article