Sanyou Client: Toly Bread Co., Ltd.

Trial organ: CNIPA

Trial result: The disputed trademark is declared invalid

Case facts

Toly Bread Co., Ltd. (the petitioner of this case) is a comprehensive large-scale enterprise dedicated to the production, processing, and sales of baked goods (bread and pastries). Its "桃李" trademark has grown into a nationally renowned bread brand across regions.

During its business operation, Toly Bread Co., Ltd. discovered that "Yikezi (Qingdao) Beverage Co., Ltd. (formerly registered as Ma XX)" had registered the "桃李" trademark in goods of Class 30, 20237766, a non-similar project, and entrusted Sanyou to file a request of invalidation against the trademark.

Focus of disputes

1. Is the petitioner’s "桃李" trademark well-known to the relevant public?

2. Whether the disputed trademark is a copy or imitation of the petitioner's well-known trademark?

3. Whether the designated goods of the disputed trademark and cited trademark constitute similar goods?

4. Has the original respondent "Ma Haidi" disrupted the normal order of trademark registration management and violated the principle of good faith?

Trial result

The disputed trademark and the cited trademark have the same text composition, both of which are "桃李"(peach and plum), forming similar trademarks. The goods designated for use in the disputed trademark, such as "vinegar, soy sauce, seasoning," are related to the products approved for use in the cited trademark, such as "bread, cereal products, and edible fragrances," in terms of functional purposes, sales channels, and consumer targets.

Meanwhile, the on-record evidence submitted by the petitioner could prove that before the date of registration application of the disputed trademark, the petitioner's "桃李" bread had gained a certain level of popularity through promotion and use. Therefore, the coexistence of disputed trademarks and cited trademarks can easily lead to confusion and misidentification of the source of goods by consumers, which has already constituted the situation provided in Article 30 of the Trademark Law.

The original respondent "Ma XX" not only applied for the disputed trademark, but also applied for the registration of more than 300 trademarks. The above-mentioned behavior has exceeded the normal production and operation needs, and has constituted the situation referred to in Article 44.1 of the Trademark Law.

With the above considered, CNIPA ruled that the disputed trademark should be declared invalid.

Typical significance

This case involves the protection of high popularity trademarks on non-similar goods. This situation should take into account factors such as the similarity between the trademark logos of both parties, as well as the originality and popularity of the famous trademarks, as well as the degree of association between the goods and services designated for use by both parties' trademarks, in ways that they may mislead the public and potentially harm the interests of the well-known trademark registrant.