A company located in Beijing registered the trademark ‘爱芯芯驰’(Ai Xin Xin Chi In Chinese Characters) on the goods of class 9 for the initial announcement, however, within the announcement period, a company located in Nanjing filed an opposition for the reason of constituting similarity with its trademark ‘芯驰科技’ (Xin Chi Ke Ji In Chinese Characters). The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) held that, after the examination, the disputed trademark completely contains the significant part of the opponent’s cited trademark, i.e. ‘芯驰’(Xin Chi in Chinese characters), furthermore, has not formed the obvious difference in terms of the meaning, it is easy for consumers to associate the goods with disputed trademark to the opponent, will consider there is special relevance between two subjects or from the same subject. Hence, ‘爱芯芯驰’(Ai Xin Xin Chi In Chinese Characters) and ‘芯驰科技’ (Xin Chi Ke Ji In Chinese Characters) constitute similarity, also, the opponent’s claim has been supported. 

For the similarity of trademarks, the writer held that, first of all, the case has been heard in 2021, hence, as per the provisions of Trademark Examination and Review Standard 2016, “a trademark completely contains a trademark completely contains a word trademark with a certain degree of strong significance, which is easy to make the relevant public think that it belongs to a series of trademarks and cause confusion and misidentification of the source of goods or services, and is recognized as a similar trademark". The application of this clause should meet two requirements: one is that the cited trademark that is completely included "has certain popularity"; the other is "strong significance". However, as per the documented evidence, it is not enough to prove that the prior trademark meets the above two requirements, and the visibility of the prior trademark is not clear in the decision of disputation. Secondly, the two trademarks ‘爱芯芯驰’(Ai Xin Xin Chi In Chinese Characters) and ‘芯驰科技’ (Xin Chi Ke Ji In Chinese Characters) have major difference in terms of words constitution and sounds, especially, the initials of two trademarks are different, it makes the overall difference between the two trademarks more obvious, and relevant public should be able to distinguish the two trademarks only with general attention, without misidentifying the source of the goods.

Later, in the Guide to Trademark Review and Trial 2021, this clause is amended as follows: "A trademark that completely contains or imitates a previously well-known or significant word trademark of others, which is easy to make the relevant public think that it belongs to a series of trademarks and cause confusion and misidentification of the source of goods or services, shall be judged as a similar trademark." Also, gave many cases for reference, i.e. “华为海思vs华为”(Hua Wei Hai Si vs Hua Wei),“一口思念vs思念”(Yi Kou Si Nian vs Si Nian),“凯悦长城vs长城”(Kai Yue Chang Cheng vs Chang Cheng). However, even if the regulation on "imitation" of others' well-known trademark is added in the revised provisions, it should also be established on the premise that the previous trademark is "well-known trademark", otherwise it will inevitably cause "misidentification" to the bona fide application.

But the case has ended, "爱芯芯驰"（Chinese in Pinyin AI Xin Chi Chi） registrants have accepted such a result, there is no point in dwelling on it. After all, from another point of view, the amendment of this clause further imposes more severe regulations on the common "near brand" registration behavior, which is undoubtedly beneficial to the prior trademark owner.