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

Compiled from The Paper
 
Case review
Recently, 60 enterprises from the Jiangxi Provincial Health and Disinfection Products Industry Association were sued by Shanghai Bili Cosmetics Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Bili Company), the holder of the "Honeysuckle" trademark, for producing products such as "Honeysuckle Floral Water." The total amount claimed in the lawsuits is approximately 12 million yuan, and in most rulings, the enterprises were found to have infringed and 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More importantly, the registered trademark "Jinyinhua" was revoked by the Trademark Office as early as 1995.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," revoking the aforementioned trademark No. 603857.

 
 

The ruling stated that "Jinyinhua is a common Chinese medicinal herb with heat-clearing and anti-inflammatory effects. When used on goods such as cosmetics and perfumes, it is likely to lead consumers to believe that such goods contain Jinyinhua ingredients and have medicinal effects. If such cosmetics indeed contain Jinyinhua, the applied trademark directly indicates the main raw material of the goods, violating Article 8 of the Trademark Law. Therefore, the registration of 'Jinyinhua' as a trademark for cosmetic goods is improper."
 
 
Trademark Law (1982)
Article 8
A trademark shall not use the following words or designs:
……
Those that directly indicate the quality, main raw materials, function, purpose, weight, quantity, or other characteristics of the goods.
……

 
 

 
[1] The author's perspective
Since this case was reported in the news, Bili Company has withdrawn lawsuits in multiple "Jinyinhua" trademark infringement cases. However, many defendant companies are not satisfied with the plaintiff's withdrawal. They have submitted applications to some courts, requesting that the courts "not permit" the applicant's withdrawal motion. There are two reasons: First, the applicant's trademark was revoked as early as 1994, so they have no legal basis to claim trademark infringement against others, constituting malicious litigation. Second, during the litigation, the applicant had already obtained the 1994 revocation ruling from the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board but failed to provide it to the court, deliberately concealing important facts of 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, if a party applies for withdrawal or a case may be handled as withdrawal according to law, and the party has engaged in illegal conduct requiring legal handling, the people's court may not permit the withdrawal or handle it as withdrawal.
 
In addition to the above issues, some companies have argued that Bili Company has no right to interfere with or prohibit the use of the "Honeysuckle" trademark, and is suspected of profiting through litigation. Moreover, if Bili Company continues to use the "Honeysuckle" mark as a trademark on cosmetics, it is itself an illegal act. If the court protects the registration and use of an illegally registered 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.