Recently, lawyer Xu Jin and lawyer Jiang Shan of Beijing Janlea Law Firm represented Lee Kum Kee Co, Ltd. in the “Li Jin Ji” trademark opposition review administrative litigation and received the final ruling in favor.

The appellant (plaintiff in the initial trial), Shenzhen Li Jin Ji Food Co., Ltd. appealed to Beijing Higher People’s Court for a repeal of the adjudication of Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and of the initial ruling of the court, on the grounds that the no. 3676671 “Li Jin Ji” trademark had obvious differences with the cited no. 871102 “Li Jin Ji Lee Kum Kee and Picture” trademark, in terms of visual display and pronunciation, that the opposed trademark was the renewal made by the appellant of the no. 303559 “Li Jin Ji”, and that the evidence provided by the appellant in the first-instance trial could prove that its trademark “Li Jin Ji” had been coexisting with the trademark of third parties for a long period of time, having caused no confusion among the public. 

After the trials at Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court and Beijing Higher People’s Court, respectively, the final ruling was given as follows: The opposed trademark, “Li Jin Ji”, and the cited “Lee Kum Kee” only differed in one Chinese character and had basically the same pronunciation. Although certain visual differences existed, its simultaneous use on their designated dressings such as soy sauce, would easily cause the relevant public to assume falsely a connection between the suppliers of the two. Also, the evidence provided by the appellant was not sufficient to prove the objective truth that, through its use, the opposed trademark had already become distinguishable from the cited trademark and that it had formed an enduring market order. Even though the application date of no. 303559 trademark preceded that of the cited trademark, Li Jin Ji Company failed to provided any evidence related to the popularity of this trademark before the application and registration of the cited trademark. In addition, the assignment of this trademark was also later than the registration approval date of the cited trademark. Therefore, the claim of the appellant lacked factual and legal justification. The appeal of Li Jin Ji Food Company was refused.