Bright Dairy & Food Co., Ltd. (applicant) applied for adjudication on Inner Mongolia Yili Industrial Group Co., Ltd.’s no. 1743196 “YOUSUAN” trademark (trademark in dispute) registered on type 29 products including “milk, yogurt and dairy products”, and no. 1758485 “YOUSUAN” trademark registered on type 30 products including “ice cream”, respectively. Bright Dairy appealed for the cancellation of the trademark in dispute. 

The primary reasoning of the applicant was that the trademark in dispute was used on the type 29 “milk, yogurt and dairy product” and the type 30 “ice cream” and related products, and thus directly communicated the quality and characteristics of the products. They should be considered as product names in common sense. 

The applied party offered their reasoning in response as: firstly, the trademark in dispute did not directly communicate either the quality of the products, or their characteristics, and therefore the trademark in dispute did not violate the content of the Trademark Law; secondly, the trademark in dispute was individually designed by the applied party and processed distinctiveness; thirdly, the trademark in dispute was lawfully registered by the applied party, under a complete adherence to legal regulations. The registration did not constitute any infringement to others, and thus the application for cancellation was made in bad faith.

The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board held that the trademark in dispute was formed by Chinese characters, of which “You” and “Suan” was not a categorical phrase. There was no sufficient reasoning as for the designation of them on dairy products, yogurts, ice cream and related products to be read by the customers with no particular attention. The phrase would be easily understood as descriptive language that directly communicated that quality and characteristics of products. In relation to the reasoning for “YOUSUAN” to be taken as a product name, the evidence provided by the applicant was not sufficient for the reasoning to be tenable. 

The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, in response to the adjudication applications filed on the two disputes above, made dispute adjudications no. 00602 (2009), no. 0060 (2009). The Board ruled that, according the article 14 of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China, the trademark in dispute was approved to maintain.