Recently, Beijing Higher People’s Court gave the final ruling on administrative dispute around the litigation filed by a technological services company in Tianjin against the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China. Zhang Hong and Xu Jin, two lawyers from our firm, attended the first-instance and second-instance trials of the case the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China’s litigation attorneys and obtained a ruling in favor.

The meaning of this case as a model is as explained below:

Due to historical reasons, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Co., Ltd. did not make any limitation to the right to use the “工” figure. Under such circumstance, the courts of first-instance and second-instance trials confirmed the fact that Industrial and Commercial Banks’ was the only owner and user of the “工” figure. The courts of first-instance and second-instance trials also pointed out in the rulings that the technological company from Tianjin was not the creator of “工” figure of this case. As the only owner and user of the “工” figure, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Co., Ltd. could lawfully protect its own copyright under its own name.

The lesson out of this case was that, when the prior rights holders, especially the authorized users of copyright items and other related benefited parties, face a trademark application made in bad faith and have no prior trademark, the regulations that protect the prior rights in article 31 of the Trademark Law, would actually often be effective against the squatters and their actions. This case would be a good example of a prior rights holder using prior copyright to stop trademark application made in bad faith.