Recently, lawyer Zhang Hong and lawyer Xu Jin of Beijing Janlea Law frim represented AB InBev Harbin Brewery Co., Ltd. in its trademark opposition review administrative litigation against Trademark Review and Adjudication Board in China and a third party with the family name Wang. The case was concluded at Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court and AB InBev Harbin Brewery Co., Ltd.’s claim was supported by the Court.

The key point of debate was whether or not the designated “alcohol-free beverages, juices, alcohol-free juices, mineral water, pure water (beverage), sodas, yogurt drinks, (fruit-based, non-milk), soy drinks and cola” products constituted similar products with “beer” designated to the cited trademark. 

After the trial at Beijing No.1 Intermediate Court, the Court ruled as follows: in this case, the opposed trademark was designated to be used on products including beer, alcohol-free beverages, juices, alcohol-free juices, mineral water, pure water (beverage), sodas, yogurt drinks, (fruit-based, non-milk), soy drinks and cola. Except for beer in this list, the other products, although different to certain degree from the beer products associated with the cited trademark in terms of ingredients and manufacturing techniques, the mentioned products possessed high level of equivalence in the eyes of consumers. Their places of sales were similar and there were overlaps in the consuming places of the products. In terms the current situation in the market, a few traditional brewery businesses had started to manufacture products such as mineral water, pure water and beverages. Therefore, for the products designated to the opposed trademark and the cited trademarks, relevant public normally would assume a specific connection that led to confusion. The two sets of products therefore constituted similar products. To conclude, the Court held that the opposed trademark and the cited trademarks 1 and 3 constituted similar trademarks on the same or similar trademarks. The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board’s judgment that the use of the opposed trademark’s on products including alcohol-free beverages and juices did not violate article 28 of the Trademark Law was faulty. The Court shall correct this judgment. Therefore, the no. 11317 adjudication made by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board lacked factual and legal support and the Court, thus, repealed the adjudication. 

The case was an important model example because, although Beijing No. 1 Intermediate Court had not reckoned in its previous ruling that beer and alcohol-free beverages as similar products, with the continuing advancement in the productive force, and the gradual development and changes in consuming habits and commands of consumers, the mindsets of business operators are in a dynamic and shifting process as well. Beijing No. 1 Intermediate Court, accordingly, made adjustments to its standards of judging similar products and conducted particular analysis for individual cases, giving an up-to-date judgement on similar products.