The recognition of a well-known trademark can never be accomplished merely by claiming it is “famous”; instead, it relies on a complete body of supporting evidence.

In practice, many enterprises assume that their brands qualify as well-known trademarks merely because they have operated for years and gained wide market recognition.

In fact, a well-known trademark is not an administrative title, but a finding made through judicial determination. Courts will not directly recognize a trademark as well-known simply due to an enterprise’s large scale or long brand history. Instead, they conduct a comprehensive assessment of all evidence in light of multiple factors specified under Article 14 of the Trademark Law.

In this case, Guangdong XX Co., Ltd. submitted extensive historical evidence concerning its cited trademark, including long-term promotional materials, media coverage, advertising expenditure, sales statistics, market share, R&D investment, exhibition documents, records of judicial protection, and various honors obtained over the years, which together formed a complete evidentiary framework.

The court ultimately held that the foregoing pieces of evidence were not isolated from one another; instead, they mutually corroborated each other in terms of time span, market coverage and industry influence. Collectively, they proved that prior to the filing date of the disputed trademark, the cited trademark had attained a high degree of recognition for electric fan goods through long-term continuous use and extensive promotion, was widely known among the relevant public in China, and met the statutory criteria for recognition as a well-known trademark.

Notably, the court in this case focused not merely on whether the enterprise had conducted promotion, but more importantly on whether such promotion was sustained. It took into account not only sales volume, but also whether the brand’s market influence had been maintained over a long period. Beyond the documents submitted by the enterprise itself, the court also made a comprehensive judgment by referencing historical materials such as prior judicial judgments and administrative protection records. For well-known trademark recognition, the evidence carrying real probative value lies in the complete brand development track formed through long-term business operation.

This also means that materials accumulated by enterprises in daily operations, including advertising contracts, media reports, sales statistics, exhibition documents, brand honors and records of rights enforcement through judicial channels, serve more than just marketing purposes. They may also become crucial evidence determining the outcome of cases involving well-known trademark protection in the future.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Trademark Law, where a trademark has been registered for more than five years, the owner of the well-known trademark shall still prove that the disputed trademark was registered in bad faith; failing such proof, the five-year time limit cannot be overridden.

In this case, the Beijing Higher People’s Court conducted a comprehensive analysis of multiple factual circumstances.

First, both the disputed trademark and the cited trademark contain the word "XX" that serves as the core distinctive element, and the two are highly similar in terms of character composition, pronunciation and overall distinctive impression.Second, the goods designated for use under the disputed trademark are identical or highly associated with the electrical appliances on which the cited trademark has gained well-known status, leading to substantial overlap in consumer exposure scenarios.Third, both parties have long engaged in the home appliance industry and are located in Guangdong Province. On this basis, the court held that the applicant of the disputed trademark ought to have known of the long-established market influence of the cited trademark at the time of filing the application, and should have reasonably avoided registering a confusingly similar mark.

In addition, the right holder also submitted evidence showing that the original applicant of the disputed trademark and its affiliated entities had filed applications for similar trademarks corresponding to numerous well-known brands, to further prove their subjective intent to free-ride on others’ brand reputation.

Taking all the above factors into consideration, the court ultimately held that the registration of the disputed trademark went beyond the scope of normal commercial choices, and the applicant harbored obvious subjective intent to reap market benefits by exploiting the goodwill of another party’s brand, which constituted bad-faith registration. Accordingly, the well-known trademark owner’s request for invalidation was not subject to the five-year time limit.

This judicial logic demonstrates that bad faith cannot be merely presumed based on the number of trademark applications or trademark similarity alone; instead, a comprehensive assessment must be made in light of industry background, market conditions, the relationship between the parties, the degree of relevance of goods and the entire body of evidence.

In recent years, people’s courts have consistently adhered to the principles of "recognition only when necessary and case-by-case protection" in the protection of well-known trademarks. Recognition of a well-known trademark is neither an honorary title nor a permanent entitlement for enterprises; instead, it constitutes a judicial ruling rendered on the basis of adequate evidence in light of the specific disputes of each individual case.

Accordingly, for brand owners, what truly matters is not scrambling to gather evidence after disputes arise, but continuously building an evidentiary system capable of proving market influence throughout brand operation. Such materials cover brand usage records, sales volumes, promotion and advertising documents, industry honors, media coverage, records of judicial protection and administrative protection, which together form a continuous, stable and traceable brand development archive.

Meanwhile, when confronting similar trademarks that have been registered for many years, even over a decade, enterprises should not simply conclude that they have lost their right to seek relief. If the right holder can prove that the cited trademark had achieved well-known status prior to the filing date of the disputed trademark, and further demonstrate that the registration of the disputed trademark involves bad-faith free-riding, reproduction or imitation of the well-known trademark, it is still possible to legally surmount the five-year time bar and sustain protection for brand rights and interests.

In this case, Shanghai Boxiang Law Firm represented Guangdong XX Co., Ltd. throughout the litigation proceedings. The legal counsel systematically presented evidence and legal arguments regarding the criteria for well-known trademark recognition, the formation of historical brand reputation, records of prior judicial protection, as well as the subjective bad faith of the applicant of the disputed trademark. The court ultimately upheld the client’s claims, rendering this case a representative judicial precedent for the cross-five-year-limit protection of well-known trademarks.