In March 2020, China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) issued a decision on opposition against a trade mark “ (TOMMY HILFIGER CHILDRENS WEAR)” no. 29303013 in Class 20 (“the opposed mark”), in which it states that the opposed mark incorporates Tommy Hilfiger’s trade mark TOMMY HILFIGER that is of strong distinctiveness and proven reputation, while the opposed party fails to provide a justified cause of the filing. As such, the CNIPA holds that the opposed party exhibits bad faith in copying and imitating Tommy Hilfiger’s trade mark and breaches the doctrine of good faith. Taking into account the likelihood of confusion should the opposed mark is approved for registration, the CNIPA finds Tommy Hilfiger’s arguments tenable and decides to disapprove the registration of the opposed mark, citing Article 7 (doctrine of good faith) of the Trademark Law (TML).

Though whether Article 7, a clause of general principle, could be directly applied in trade mark prosecution cases remains controversial, in practice, the CNIPA has been applying this article against bad-faith filings in numerous opposition cases, where in most scenarios, the opposed party has copied or imitated at least several marks. It is not the case in this decision. The CNIPA recognizes the applicant’s bad faith by its application of a single one mark, obviously weighing in the reputation and strong distinctiveness of TOMMY HILFIGER. This decision reflects the CNIPA’s determination in attacking bad faith filings and reassuring genuine brand owners in their fight against trade mark squatters in China.

Contributed by: Ye Cai