Recently, LvXinShe released its 2025 benchmark cases. The "Five Related Administrative Disputes over the Invalidation of a Beijing Education Trademark Right between Chai and the China National Intellectual Property Administration," handled by Yuan Fulian, senior partner of Beijing Lianhui Law Firm, was selected in the intellectual property and trademark category. After losing at both first and second instance, the case was ultimately retried and reversed by the Supreme People's Court, which is extremely rare in judicial practice. Why is the trademark invalidation procedure so complex? How high is the threshold for the Supreme People's Court to retry and reverse a judgment? How should enterprises respond to trademark squatting or malicious registration? Based on this case and current legal norms, this article analyzes these issues from the perspective of lawyer practice.

Statutory grounds and procedural essentials for trademark invalidation declarations

Trademark invalidation is an important remedy provided by the Trademark Law for parties to oppose malicious or irregular registrations. According to Articles 44 and 45 of the Trademark Law, if a registered trademark violates prohibitive provisions, was obtained through deception or other improper means, or infringes upon the prior rights of others, any entity or individual may request that it be declared invalid. Among these, Article 44 addresses absolute grounds, such as marks lacking distinctiveness or having adverse effects; Article 45 addresses relative grounds, such as being identical or similar to another's prior trademark, or infringing copyright or name rights.

In this case, Chai filed for invalidation of a trademark owned by a Beijing education company, which involves review on relative grounds. When initiating this procedure, lawyers need to focus on preparing three types of evidence: first, evidence proving the existence of prior rights and the time of their formation; second, evidence proving that the disputed trademark conflicts with prior rights; third, evidence proving the registrant's subjective bad faith, such as knowingly preemptively registering a mark already in use by others. During case handling, the Yuan Fuli team discovered that the company involved had been penalized multiple times by market regulatory authorities and had used misleading consumer statements in connection with other trademarks. These pieces of evidence directly strengthened the finding of bad-faith registration.

In practice, a request for invalidation declaration should be filed with the China National Intellectual Property Administration. If dissatisfied with the ruling, one may sue at the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, and further appeal to the Beijing High People's Court. The uniqueness of this case lies in that, after losing in the second instance, the party did not stop but continued to apply to the Supreme People's Court for retrial, ultimately obtaining a retrial that reversed the judgment. This reminds lawyers that in administrative litigation, if new evidence is discovered or the original trial indeed erred in applying the law, they should actively utilize the retrial procedure rather than easily give up.

Judicial Practice and Standards of Proof in Retrial Reversals

Retrials and reversals of administrative cases by the Supreme People's Court are extremely rare in judicial practice, typically limited to circumstances such as errors in the application of law, serious procedural violations, or new evidence sufficient to overturn the original judgment. Under Article 91 of the Administrative Litigation Law, parties applying for retrial must satisfy statutory grounds, and the court will only initiate retrial proceedings after review determines that the conditions are met. In this case, the core breakthrough of Yuan Fulian's team lay in uncovering evidence of the defendant company's own admissions—its public account posts acknowledged the existence of misleading statements, and a courtroom comparison of trademark counts exposed the false defense that "the company possesses only this one trademark."

This case fully demonstrates the importance of a closed loop in the chain of evidence. Trademark invalidation cases often involve a large amount of use evidence, promotional materials, and administrative records. Lawyers need to

From the perspective of adjudication standards, the Supreme People's Court focuses on three key points when reversing a judgment: first, whether the original trial judgment omitted key evidence; second, whether the application of law was erroneous, such as improper grasp of the criteria for determining "malicious registration"; third, whether the adjudication result was clearly unjust. If a company loses in trademark administrative litigation, it should assess whether the above circumstances exist rather than blindly appealing. It was precisely by converting the details of individual cases into effective legal arguments that the Yuan Foulian team achieved the reversal.

Corporate Trademark Defense Strategies and Risk Response

Trademarks are a company's core intangible asset; once invalidated or preemptively registered by others, they may directly lead to damage to the brand's value. The primary lesson this case offers to enterprises is that a comprehensive similarity search and conflict-of-rights analysis should be conducted before trademark registration, so as to avoid using marks that lack distinctiveness or conflict with the prior rights of others. After successful registration, enterprises should also establish a monitoring mechanism to regularly check whether similar trademarks have been applied for and file oppositions in a timely manner.

For companies already embroiled in trademark invalidation declaration disputes, lawyers recommend adopting a layered response strategy: in administrative proceedings, actively submit evidence of use and materials demonstrating reputation to prove that the trademark has acquired distinctiveness through use; at the litigation stage, rebut the opposing party's evidence item by item, and introduce expert witnesses when necessary. At the same time, companies should preserve all evidence of trademark use, including sales contracts, invoices, advertising and publicity materials, exhibition records, etc., to form a complete evidentiary file.

In addition, this case also involves the regulation of bad-faith trademark squatting. If an enterprise discovers that its trademark has been squatted, it may, in accordance with Article 32 of the Trademark Law, assert that the squatter has violated the principle of good faith, and submit evidence that the squatter knew or should have known of the prior use of the trademark by others. In recent years, the China National Intellectual Property Administration has intensified its crackdown on bad-faith trademark squatting, and enterprises should make good use of this policy orientation. In handling cases, the team of Yuan Fulian effectively corroborated the bad faith nature of the registration by verifying the illegal records of other trademarks of the company involved. This cross-referencing approach to evidence collection is worth learning from.

The Practice of Balancing Professionalism and Empathy in Lawyers

Judging from Yuan Fulian's professional experience, her success stems not only from professional competence but also from deep empathy for her clients. In the trademark case, she dared to challenge the retrial procedure that the industry generally viewed unfavorably, relying on meticulous research into every detail of the case. When representing disadvantaged groups, she demonstrated care that went beyond the attorney-client relationship. This dual-driven approach of "professionalism plus empathy" is precisely the core competitiveness of the legal profession.

For young lawyers, this case reveals three paths for growth: first, to settle down and thoroughly research the case. Yuan Fulian once worked until 2 a.m. for three consecutive years analyzing the facts of a case, writing more than 10,000 words of analysis in a single night. Such accumulation is the foundation for breaking through difficult cases. Second, to dare to take unconventional procedural routes. If one believes the judgment is unjust, one should actively use remedies such as retrial and procuratorial supervision. Third, to look beyond the law to understand issues. Only by comprehending business logic and the client's true needs can effective solutions be provided.

Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm has always advocated the service philosophy of "founding the firm on professionalism and upholding responsibility as the core." We believe that lawyers are not only legal technicians but also guardians of clients' risks. Whether in trademark disputes or other civil and commercial conflicts, we are committed to helping clients find optimal solutions in complex legal environments through meticulous case handling and sincere communication.

Conclusion: Boundary Breakthroughs by Legal Professionals and the Progress of the Rule of Law

Yuan Fulian said after learning of the Supreme People's Court's revised ruling that this is not a personal victory, but a victory for the rule of law in China. This case indeed reflects the progress in judicial protection of intellectual property rights in China — the effective operation of the retrial procedure provides a channel for correcting erroneous judgments and also encourages more lawyers to boldly take on difficult cases. For enterprises and individuals, if involved in trademark invalidation or similar administrative disputes, they should consult professional lawyers as early as possible and evaluate procedural strategies. The law never disappoints those who take it seriously.