General Overview

Client: Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd.
Case Attorneys: Fu Rao, Meng Rubing
Adjudicating Authority: China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA)
Ruling: The registration application for the disputed trademark on the reviewed goods has been preliminarily approved.
Trademark: Soundcore Glow

About the Attorneys

Agent and Author Introduction

FU Rao 

TRADEMARK ATTORNEY

Engaged in intellectual property work since 2017, the lead attorney is well-versed in various trademark matters, including pre-application searches and analysis, filing, oppositions, reviews, invalidations, and trademark monitoring. They specialize in providing comprehensive trademark acquisition and protection strategies tailored to clients' needs.

Agent Introduction

MENG Rubing 

ATTORNEY-AT-LAW / TRADEMARK ATTORNEY 

The co-attorney has extensive experience in trademark examination and prosecution, with expertise in pre-filing trademark searches and targeted monitoring services based on client requirements. They also specialize in crafting comprehensive trademark acquisition and protection plans for domestic clients and are familiar with various trademark procedures, including the recognition of well-known marks.

PART 01: About the Applicant

Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Anker Innovations") was founded in 2011 and is a leading Chinese global consumer electronics brand. The company focuses on the design, development, and sales of smart accessories and hardware. With the mission of "promoting the beauty of Chinese intelligent manufacturing," Anker continuously innovates to bring cutting-edge technology products to global consumers. It has successfully built multiple renowned brands such as Anker (smart charging), Soundcore, eufy, and Nebula, with business areas covering AIoT, smart home, intelligent acoustics, and smart security.

As of June 30, 2024, Anker has accumulated 2,245 intellectual property rights globally, including 214 invention patents, 965 utility models, and 723 design patents, with many others under application. The company holds a leading market share on major domestic and international e-commerce platforms, exporting to 51 countries and regions, including North America, Europe, Japan, South Korea, and Australia, with export revenue accounting for 91.78% of total income. Anker enjoys high brand recognition and reputation.

In April 2024, Anker's trademark “” was certified as a "AAA Well-Known Trademark Brand" under the T/CNTA 002-2022 group standard after on-site evaluation and expert review organized by the China Trademark Association. In May, during China Brand Day in Shanghai, it was awarded the corresponding certificate and plaque.

PART 02: About the Trademark

Soundcore is Anker's audio brand, with product lines including TWS earbuds, over-ear headphones, noise-cancelling headphones, and portable Bluetooth speakers. The brand is committed to creating high-quality audio products through innovative technology, user experience, and acoustic analysis. Soundcore has received numerous awards both domestically and internationally, such as the International CMF Design Award, the iF Design Award, and the CES Innovation Award. Its products have been sold in over 50 countries, with total sales exceeding 10 million units and over 10 million users worldwide.

The trademark Soundcore Glow represents a sub-brand of Anker's portable wireless Bluetooth speaker product line.

PART 03: Review Process

To protect its brand, Anker applied to register the disputed trademark “Soundcore Glow” under Class 9. The CNIPA initially rejected the application, reasoning that the mark directly describes the functions of the designated goods and thus falls under Article 11(1)(ii) of the Trademark Law, which prohibits registration of such marks.

Anker disagreed with this rejection and commissioned Sanyou Intellectual Property Agency to file a review of refusal. Upon review, the CNIPA found that the mark does not directly indicate the function or characteristics of the goods and does not fall under the scope of Article 11(1)(ii). Therefore, the trademark was preliminarily approved for registration.

PART 04: Legal Provisions

Article 11(1)(ii) of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China: Marks that only directly indicate the quality, main raw materials, function, purpose, weight, quantity, or other characteristics of the goods shall not be registered as trademarks.

PART 05: Representation Strategy

The key to the review argument was to demonstrate that the trademark does not "only" and "directly" describe the goods' characteristics. These two terms—"only" and "directly"—are progressive conditions under Article 11(1)(ii).

• "Only" requires the trademark as a whole to describe the goods' characteristics or to be composed solely of non-distinctive elements.

• "Directly" means the mark explicitly describes the features of the goods without any level of implication or abstraction.

If a mark includes distinctive components, it cannot be considered as "only" and "directly" descriptive. Furthermore, when determining whether the trademark is "only" and "directly" descriptive, one must consider the designated goods and public perception. Even if the mark includes descriptive elements, if it is not associated with the designated goods by the public, it does not fall under Article 11(1)(ii).

In this case, Sanyou argued and provided evidence that Soundcore Glow is a coined term with high distinctiveness. “Soundcore,” being Anker’s core brand, has inherent distinctiveness and enjoys substantial reputation and public recognition due to long-term, widespread use. This strengthens its distinctiveness. Additionally, the attorneys analyzed the public's perception and the nature of the goods, arguing that the mark does not directly describe the goods’ features.

Lastly, the attorneys cited several registered trademarks from the “Soundcore” series, pointing out that the disputed trademark is similar in nature and, in the interest of consistent examination standards, should likewise be approved for registration.

PART 06: Significance

To reject a trademark under Article 11(1)(ii), it must both "only" and "directly" describe the designated goods or services. One cannot simply determine a mark is non-distinctive just because it contains some descriptive elements. Doing so would unjustly harm the applicant's legitimate interests and expectations.

Therefore, when contesting a refusal under Article 11(1)(ii), the key is to highlight the distinctive components of the trademark, assess its relevance to the designated goods or services, and analyze consumer perception. The successful outcome of this case provides valuable guidance for arguing inherent distinctiveness in similar review proceedings.