On April 24, 2026, the results of the 2025 Annual "Benchmark Intellectual Property Cases" selection organized by Lvxin Society were officially announced. The trademark invalidation administrative dispute case between Guangdong Triangle Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. and the National Intellectual Property Administration, represented by Shanghai Boxiang Law Firm, was successfully selected as one of the annual benchmark cases in the trademark category of intellectual property, fully demonstrating Boxiang’s professional prowess in trademark administrative rights protection.

Basic Case Facts

I. Information of the Plaintiff and the Rightful Trademark

The trademark "Zuanshi (Diamond)" is owned by Guangdong Triangle Electric Appliance Co., Ltd., a time-honored state-controlled enterprise. Originated in Guangzhou in 1964, it ranks among China’s earliest home appliance brands.The brand launched its "Zuanshi" electric fans back in the 1960s. From the 1970s to the 1980s, products under the "Zuanshi" trademark were exported to more than 50 countries and regions across Asia, Europe and beyond, and the brand still enjoys a high reputation in Southeast Asia to this day. In recent years, "Zuanshi" electric fans have maintained a leading position in the industry, with an annual production and sales volume of nearly 8 million units.

Cited Trademark No. 47099 was originally registered by Guangzhou Branch of China Sundries Export Corporation, covering goods in Class 11 including electric fans, electric cooking appliances and others, with the registration date of October 1, 1964. Due to enterprise restructuring and other factors, after multiple renewals and assignments, the trademark ownership was ultimately transferred to the plaintiff, Guangdong Triangle Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.

II. Information of the Disputed Trademark and Its Invalidation Review Proceedings

In recent years, the trademark owner has discovered a large number of infringing electric fan products affixed with the mark "Feilu Zuanshi (Flying Deer Diamond)" on the market. The mark is similar to the owner’s "Zuanshi (Diamond)" trademark for electric fans, which is highly likely to cause confusion among consumers, divert sales of the owner’s genuine products, and seriously impair the owner’s legitimate rights and interests.Upon investigation, the disputed trademark herein, Trademark No. 4312229 "Feilu Zuanshi", was filed for registration by Liang Wenguang on October 15, 2004 and granted registration on August 14, 2007. Its designated goods fall under Class 11, including disinfection cabinets, electric heaters, fans (air conditioning), etc. On January 12, 2023, the trademark owner Guangdong Triangle Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. filed an invalidation application against the disputed trademark and claimed protection as a well-known trademark. The Trademark Office rendered a ruling to maintain the disputed trademark and refused to grant well-known trademark protection to the cited trademark.

III. Ideas for Administrative Litigation

Guangdong Triangle Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. entrusted Shanghai Boxiang Law Firm to file an administrative lawsuit before the Beijing Intellectual Property Court against the ruling on the trademark invalidation application. As more than five years had elapsed between the registration date of the disputed trademark and the filing of the invalidation application, the legal representative recollected, organized and submitted evidence centering on two core points in the administrative litigation: first, Cited Trademark No. 47099 had already constituted a well-known trademark prior to 2004; second, the application for the disputed trademark was filed with obvious bad faith.

      On the one hand, through reviewing old newspapers and yearbooks, consulting archives and other channels, targeted evidence concerning the fame of the plaintiff’s trademark from 2001 to 2004 was submitted, including:(1) Publicity evidence: special issues of International Business Daily covering the Canton Fair in 2001, advertising invoices from Guangzhou Television Station in 2003, advertising schedules for "Zuanshi Brand" electric fans from 2003 to 2005, etc.;(2) Use evidence: domestic and overseas sales invoices of "Zuanshi Brand" electric fans issued between 2001 and 2003;(3) Special audit reports for "Zuanshi Brand" electric fans covering 2003 to 2006;(4) Records of trademark enforcement actions from 2001 to 2008.

On the other hand, we fully investigated and adduced evidence to prove the bad faith of the disputed trademark applicant.First, regarding the applicant’s trademark filing history. In addition to the disputed trademark in this case, Liang Wenguang, the applicant, has filed numerous applications for trademarks similar to the plaintiff’s "Zuanshi" brand and other well-known home appliance brands, including "Meifeilu (Midea Flying Deer)" and "Feilu Shijixing (Flying Deer Century Star)". Such conduct demonstrates systematic bad faith to free-ride on the reputation of renowned home appliance brands.Second, regarding trademarks registered by the applicant’s affiliated entities. Guangdong Feilu Electric Appliance Co., Ltd., an enterprise under the actual control of Liang Wenguang, has also applied for and registered multiple similar trademarks.Third, the applicant’s affiliated company has records of trademark infringement and malicious litigation. Guangdong Feilu Electric Appliance Co., Ltd., controlled by Liang Wenguang, has been judicially found liable for manufacturing electric fan products that infringed upon others’ trademark rights. Furthermore, the enterprise was ruled by the court to have initiated malicious litigation by abusing intellectual property rights, and the relevant case was selected as one of the Court’s Top Ten Typical Intellectual Property Cases.

Judgment Result

Typical Significance

I. Adopting a targeted rights protection strategy to break through the five-year time limit barrier, successfully invalidating a trademark applied for nearly two decades ago, and severely cracking down on bad-faith trademark registration by free-riding on well-known brands.

The disputed trademark subject to invalidation in this case had been filed for registration for more than 20 years. By analyzing the core disputes of the case, the legal representatives identified two key facts to be proved: the disputed trademark was registered in bad faith, and the cited trademark had constituted a well-known trademark prior to the filing date of the disputed trademark. A precise litigation strategy was formulated accordingly. During the court hearing, evidence was submitted and arguments were presented to the tribunal focusing on the core issues of the case. Ultimately, the firm successfully overcame the obstacle that the disputed trademark had been registered for two decades, and Trademark No. 47099 was again granted protection as a well-known trademark.

II. Evidence collected from multiple sources pushed forward the time point for well-known trademark recognition from 2006 to 2004, confirming that the "Zuanshi Brand" had already constituted a well-known trademark as early as two decades ago.

The recognition of well-known trademarks in China follows the case-by-case identification principle. As a result, some time-honored enterprises may lack preserved materials proving their historical fame dating back a long time. In this case, the legal representatives extensively collected and organized evidence of brand reputation through various means, including reviewing Guangzhou yearbooks and old newspapers, obtaining library search reports, and consulting archives. The efforts were eventually recognized by the court, boosting the confidence of time-honored brands in safeguarding their registered trademarks and seeking well-known trademark protection.

III. Giving full play to the interaction of relevant case factors, reversing the refusal of well-known trademark protection made in the administrative procedure during the litigation process, and setting a model for the well-known trademark protection of time-honored enterprises and the stability of market order.

Various factors affecting the protection of well-known trademarks are not entirely independent, but interact and reinforce one another. In this case, by comprehensively weighing multiple factors including the fame of the cited trademark, the similarity between trademarks, the relevance of designated goods, and the bad faith in filing and registering the disputed trademark, the court finally ruled to invalidate the disputed trademark. This reversed the decision made by the National Intellectual Property Administration in the trademark invalidation procedure, under which the Administration failed to recognize the fame of the cited trademark and the applicant’s bad faith in registering the disputed trademark, and thus upheld the disputed trademark.

Boxiang Deeply Cultivates Intellectual Property Rights to Safeguard Brand Value