Major reversal in the "honeysuckle" trademark case; litigation rights should not be taken lightly.

Compiled from The Paper
 
Case review
Recently, 60 companies under the Jiangxi Health and Disinfection Products Industry Association were sued by Shanghai Bili Cosmetics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Bili Company), the holder of the "Jinyinhua" trademark, for producing products such as "Jinyinhua Floral Water." The total amount claimed in the lawsuits is approximately 12 million yuan. In the vast majority of judgments, the companies were found to have infringed the trademark and were ordered to pay compensation.

 
 

The defendant enterprises stated in an interview that honeysuckle, as a traditional Chinese medicinal plant, is widely used by the Chinese people and is also recorded in the national pharmacopoeia. They argued that prominently using it as an ingredient in floral water products does not constitute infringement.

More importantly, the registered trademark "Jinyinhua" was announced for cancellation by the National Trademark Office as early as 1995. Trademark archives of the China National Intellectual Property Administration show that in 1994, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board issued a ruling on the improper registration of the "Jinyinhua" trademark, canceling the aforementioned Jinyinhua trademark No. 603857.

 
 

The above ruling held that "honeysuckle is a common traditional Chinese medicinal herb with heat-clearing and anti-inflammatory effects. When used on goods such as cosmetics and perfumes, it easily leads consumers to believe that such goods contain honeysuckle ingredients and therefore have medicinal effects. If such cosmetics do indeed contain honeysuckle, then the opposed trademark directly indicates the main raw material of the goods, in violation of Article 8 of the Trademark Law. Accordingly, 'honeysuckle' as a trademark for cosmetic goods constitutes improper registration."
 
 
Trademark Law (1982)
Article 8
A trademark shall not use the following words or designs:
……
Directly indicating the quality, main raw materials, functions, uses, weight, quantity, and other characteristics of goods;
……

 
 

 
[1] The author's perspective
Since this case was reported in the news, Bi Li Company has withdrawn multiple “Jinyinhua” trademark infringement lawsuits. However, many defendant companies were not satisfied with the plaintiff’s withdrawal and sent applications to certain courts, requesting that the courts “not grant permission” for the applicant’s withdrawal. There are two reasons for this: first, the applicant’s trademark was revoked as early as 1994, so its claims of trademark infringement against others lack a legal basis and constitute malicious litigation. Second, during the litigation, the applicant had already obtained the 1994 Trademark Review and Adjudication Board’s revocation ruling but failed to provide it to the court, constituting deliberate concealment of important facts related to the case. According to Article 238 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, where a party applies to withdraw a case or where a case may be treated as withdrawn in accordance with law, if the party has committed acts in violation of the law that need to be dealt with in accordance with law, the people’s court may not grant the withdrawal or may not treat the case as withdrawn.
 
In addition to the above issues, some companies have also argued that Bili Company has no right to interfere with or prohibit the use of the "Jinyinhua" trademark and is suspected of profiting through litigation. Moreover, if Bili Company continues to use the "Jinyinhua" mark as a trademark on cosmetics, such use itself constitutes an illegal act. If the court protects the illegal registration and use of a trademark, it would harm the interests of the applicant and the public.

Thus, it can be seen that just judicial power should not be abused, and unreasonable civil rights will not be protected.