Administrative Trademark Dispute Between Guangzhou Sanjiao Electric Appliance Co., Ltd., CNIPA and Liang XX | Feilu Diamond Trademark Case

Case Overview

Guangdong Sanjiao Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Sanjiao Company”) is a time-honored home appliance enterprise with decades of brand history. Its No. 47099 “ZUANSHI / DIAMOND” trademark (Class 11, covering electric fans, electric cookers and other home appliances) has obtained numerous honors since the 1990s and long maintained a leading position in the industry. As a well-known classic domestic home appliance brand, all of Sanjiao Company’s prior registered trademarks related to “DIAMOND” have been legally and continuously in use to date.

In contrast, natural person Liang XX filed an application for the No. 4312229 “Feilu Diamond” trademark on October 15, 2004, which was approved for registration on August 14, 2007. The trademark is designated for use on Class 11 goods including electric fans, electric kettles, electric cookers and range hoods. The disputed trademark fully incorporates the core distinctive word element “DIAMOND” of Sanjiao Company’s prior trademark, with highly overlapping designated goods and identical industrial application scenarios.

On January 12, 2023, Sanjiao Company filed a trademark invalidation request against the disputed “Feilu Diamond” trademark with the National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA). The CNIPA sustained the trademark’s validity, holding that the invalidation application was filed beyond the statutory five-year term after registration, and the existing evidence was insufficient to prove that the “DIAMOND” trademark had constituted a well-known trademark prior to the filing date of the disputed trademark.

Dissatisfied with the ruling, Sanjiao Company entrusted Shanghai Boxiang Law Firm to file an administrative lawsuit before the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. The first-instance court fully adopted the firm’s litigation claims, revoked the CNIPA’s ruling and ordered it to make a new administrative decision. Both CNIPA and Liang XX filed an appeal with the Beijing Higher People’s Court. Ultimately, the higher court rejected all appeals and upheld the original judgment, ordering the complete invalidation of the disputed “Feilu Diamond” trademark, marking a full victory for Sanjiao Company in the brand protection litigation.

Key Case Difficulties

This is a typical and complicated landmark case concerning the protection of time-honored well-known trademarks against malicious trademark registration filed more than five years prior. The case involves three major difficulties: collection of historical evidence for well-known trademark recognition, determination of subjective malicious intent, and application of statutory limitation provisions, resulting in enormous obstacles to trademark enforcement.

1. Statutory Limitation Barrier: Five-year Invalidation Term Restricts Rights Protection

The disputed trademark was registered in 2007, and Sanjiao Company’s invalidation application in 2023 far exceeded the statutory five-year invalidation term stipulated by the Trademark Law. Both the CNIPA and the appellant claimed that the application should be directly dismissed due to expiration of the statutory term, constituting the primary procedural obstacle in this case.

2. Difficulty in Well-Known Trademark Recognition: Fragmented Historical Evidence Requires Retrospective Verification of Decades-old Brand Reputation

The core of the case lies in confirming that the “DIAMOND” trademark had already become well-known prior to the disputed trademark’s application date in 2004. As the trademark application dates back more than two decades, early business data including sales records, advertising contracts, media reports and honorary certificates were incompletely preserved. The legal team systematically sorted out decades of brand development materials to fully prove continuous trademark use, widespread promotion, high market share and outstanding industry influence. Meanwhile, the opposing party argued that the submitted evidence was insufficient to prove well-known status before 2004, placing huge burden of proof on the trademark notoriety verification. Building on the firm’s previous successful representation in the Zuanshi Baolan trademark cases, this case further advanced the recognized well-known time node of the “DIAMOND” trademark from 2006 to 2004, requiring in-depth excavation, sorting and professional argumentation of historical evidence.

3. Disputes Over Subjective Malice and Trademark Similarity Determination

As a peer home appliance operator based in Guangdong Province, Liang XX denied any malicious registration intent and claimed that the “Feilu Diamond” trademark was significantly different from the prior “DIAMOND” trademark without replication or imitation. The court strictly reviewed and comprehensively determined trademark similarity and subjective registration intent based on multiple dimensions including regional relevance, industry attributes, trademark composition, pronunciation and usage scenarios.

4. Complex Application and Coordination of Legal Provisions

The case involves the application of multiple versions of the Trademark Law. It requires accurate application of well-known trademark protection provisions under the 2001 Trademark Law and invalidation & malicious registration exception provisions under the 2019 Trademark Law, as well as precise interpretation of the legal rule that well-known trademark owners are not restricted by the five-year invalidation term in cases of malicious registration, demanding extremely high professionalism in legal argumentation.

Judgment Result

Case No.: (2025) Jing Xing Zhong No. 4302

The Beijing Higher People’s Court finally rejected all appeals filed by the CNIPA and Liang XX, upheld the first-instance judgment, and legally declared the No. 4312229 “Feilu Diamond” trademark invalid.

Core Judicial Key Points

1. Advanced Time Node for Well-Known Trademark Recognition

Based on comprehensive evidence including brand honor qualifications, annual sales volume (over 10 million “DIAMOND” brand electric fans sold annually from 2003 to 2005), stable market share, nationwide advertising promotion, public media reports and prior judicial & administrative rulings, the court legally confirmed that as early as 2004, the “DIAMOND” trademark of Sanjiao Company had been widely known by the relevant public in the core electric fan product category and constituted a well-known trademark, further advancing the recognized well-known time node compared with previous rulings.

2. Exception Application to the Five-year Statutory Limitation

As a local peer operator in the same industry, Liang XX deliberately imitated and registered the disputed trademark with full knowledge of the high notoriety of the “DIAMOND” trademark, demonstrating obvious subjective malicious intent. In accordance with Trademark Law provisions, where a well-known trademark owner requests invalidation of a maliciously registered trademark, the application is not restricted by the five-year registration limitation. Sanjiao Company’s rights protection application was subject-qualified and procedurally legitimate.

3. Standard for Trademark Similarity Judgment

The disputed trademark “Feilu Diamond” fully incorporates the core distinctive element “DIAMOND”, with highly similar text composition, pronunciation and overall connotation. Its designated goods are identical or highly associated with those of the prior well-known trademark, which is highly likely to cause public confusion and constitutes deliberate replication and imitation of the prior well-known trademark.

4. Legal Consequence Recognition

The registration of the disputed trademark improperly free-rode on the market goodwill of the time-honored well-known trademark, impaired the legitimate rights and interests of Sanjiao Company, violated Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the 2001 Trademark Law, and shall therefore be legally invalidated.

Typical Case Significance

As a benchmark intellectual property case for the historical protection of time-honored home appliance well-known trademarks, regulation of malicious trademark squatting, and breakthrough of the five-year invalidation limitation, this case inherits and upgrades the judicial achievements of the firm’s previous “DIAMOND” series trademark protection cases (including the Zuanshi Baolan case), providing multi-dimensional demonstration value for enterprise brand protection and industrial rights enforcement.

1. Deeply Excavating Historical Evidence to Advance Well-Known Recognition Nodes and Strengthen Goodwill Protection for Time-Honored Brands

Following the Zuanshi Baolan series cases, this case further excavated early business operation, promotion and honor evidence of the enterprise, advancing the well-known recognition time node of the “DIAMOND” trademark from 2006 to 2004. It clarifies that people’s courts may comprehensively confirm the early well-known status of time-honored trademarks based on decades of continuous sales data, industrial honors, regional influence and long-term promotion records. The case provides a complete proof framework and judicial reference for time-honored Chinese brands and traditional national enterprises to sort out historical brand evidence and claim early well-known trademark protection, safeguarding the goodwill inheritance of traditional national brands.

2. Clarifying the Exception Rule for Malicious Registration to Break the Five-year Limitation Barrier for Rights Protection

This case clearly clarifies the core rule of the Trademark Law: for malicious registration acts that deliberately imitate and free-ride on others’ well-known trademarks with subjective intent, the well-known trademark owner still has the right to file invalidation applications even if the trademark has been registered for more than five years. The judgment breaks the industry misconception that “trademarks registered for over five years cannot be revoked”, severely curtails malicious trademark squatting and brand free-riding behaviors, raises the illegal cost of malicious registration, and maintains a fair and orderly trademark market competition order.

3. Unifying Judicial Standards for Similar Trademarks in the Same Industry and Strengthening Protection for Well-Known Trademarks on Associated Goods

Adopting the legal principle of argumentum a fortiori, the court clarified that the protection scope of well-known trademarks is not limited to cross-class goods. Replication and imitation of well-known trademarks on identical or highly associated goods shall be subject to stricter legal regulation. For similar trademark registration behaviors by operators in the same region and industry, the court may presume subjective malice based on industrial attributes, regional relevance and trademark distinctive features, providing important judicial guidance for trademark similarity judgment and infringement determination in traditional FMCG industries such as home appliances, daily chemicals and food.

4. Forming a Closed-loop Precedent System for Series Brand Rights Protection to Empower Full-chain IP Protection for Enterprises

Together with previous “DIAMOND” series trademark litigation cases represented by the firm including the Zuanshi Baolan case, this case forms a coherent and unified judicial protection system, gradually building a comprehensive protection pattern for the time-honored “DIAMOND” trademark. It fully proves that time-honored enterprises can establish long-term trademark protection barriers through continuous rights protection, evidence solidification and case-by-case judicial recognition, and accumulates replicable and promotable practical experience for law firms handling series trademark disputes and historical brand protection cases.

5. Practicing Strict IP Protection Orientation to Boost High-quality Development of National Brands

Time-honored brands are precious assets of national industries. Adhering to the principle of good faith, this judicial judgment firmly cracks down on infringements that maliciously leverage the goodwill of time-honored brands, conveying the clear judicial attitude of strengthening IP protection for time-honored and well-known national brands. It helps traditional enterprises retain core brand value and stimulate the innovation and development vitality of classic domestic brands.