Abuse of Rights and Legal Consequences

Author: Yingying Zhu, Partner at BEIJING MINGDUN LAW FIRM


Date: June 15, 2022




Intellectual Property Rights (“IPRs”) empower their owners with a privilege to exclude unauthorized parties from use of the relevant subject matter under protection (for example, trademarks, patents, copyrights). However, exercising IPRs might sometimes generate tensions with other sectors of law, such as the civil code, the anti-unfair competition law, the antitrust law, etc. According to the China Supreme People’s Court’s interpretation of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, where a person exercises any civil right (including IPRs) mainly for the purpose of injuring the national interest, the public interest, or the lawful rights and interests of another person, the people’s court shall determine that there is an abuse of civil rights.[1] In such a situation, IPRs no longer render the owners exclusionary rights against the other users in the market and the owners should also face the legal consequences of their actions.


Recently, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court (“Beijing IP Court”) concluded the case of trademark infringement dispute between the appellant Ma and the appellee Shenzhen CHOW TAI FOOK Online Media Co., LTD. (“CHOW TAI FOOK”) and the defendant of first instance Beijing Jingdong E-commerce Co., LTD (“Jingdong”). It was concluded by the Beijing IP Court that the appellant Ma filed a lawsuit of infringement against the legitimate use of CHOW TAI FOOK company based on trademark rights not fairly obtained, which constituted an abuse of rights. Therefore, the appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld.[2]


As one of the typical cases where a trademark squatter was left empty-handed on account of an abuse of rights, the above case is sending a clear and strong message to trademark holders that do not use a mark in conjunction with the actual sale of goods or services, but generate or attempt to generate the majority of their earnings by enforcing their trademarks through malicious litigation — “For a truly enforceable trademark, you should earn it fair and square”.


Basic Facts


When the plaintiff Ma filed a lawsuit with the first-instance court, he claimed that he applied for the registration of the trademark 'Jiao Ren (meaning: Proud Person)' on the Class 14 goods related to 'jewelry' on May 6, 2008, and the registration was approved on March 28, 2010. Ma alleged that he had already used the trademark to produce and sell diamonds of the “Jiao Ren” branded series. It was found that CHOW TAI FOOK store was selling at Jingdong’s online platform “Jiao Ren” series of rings and necklaces. Ma thought that CHOW TAI FOOK and Jingdong’s behavior violated its trademark rights, and he requested the court to order CHOW TAI FOOK and Jingdong to cease the infringing acts immediately and to pay him the reasonable expenses and compensation for the economic losses in a total amount of CNY50,000.  

The first-instance court held that CHOW TAI FOOK's use of the “Jiao Ren” logo on the products involved in the case was legitimate and did not infringe Ma's trademark rights of “Jiao Ren” trademark. Therefore, the first-instance court dismissed all the claims of Ma. Ma refused to accept the judgment and appealed to the Beijing IP Court, requesting the revocation of the first-instance court’s decision and the reissuance of a judgment to support all the litigation claims raised.[3]

Beijing IP Court’s Decision

The Beijing IP Court made a judgement in the second instance to uphold the decision of the first-instance court. The judgement in the second instance was based on the following findings[4]:

·         Ma's application for registration of the trademark “Jiao Ren” violates the principle of honesty and credibility; and

·         Ma's infringement lawsuit against CHOW TAI FOOK constitutes an abuse of rights.

Why is an “abuse of rights” found in Ma vs. CHOW TAI FOOK?


To explain why Ma’s conduct was characterized as an “abuse of rights”, the Beijing IP Court highlighted the following key elements[5] of “culpability” on the part of the plaintiff Ma:

1.    Trademarks Comparison

The “Jiao Ren” trademark that Ma applied for registration on a later date is similar to the “Jiao Ren” logo previously used by CHOW TAI FOOK in terms of text combination, design and visual effect.

2.    Subjective Intent

CHOW TAI FOOK launched the “Jiao Ren” series of diamond products in 2006. After extensive use and publicity, the “Jiao Ren” series of diamond products and the “Jiao Ren” logo of CHOW TAI FOOK have gained high popularity. Under such circumstances, Ma applied for the registration of “Jiao Ren” trademark in 2008, which is similar to CHOW TAI FOOK’s “Jiao Ren” logo. Judging from the above conduct, it is difficult to say that Ma came up with such idea in good faith.

3.    Trademark Use

The documented evidence submitted by Ma can only prove that he has licensed the trademark after registering the trademark “Jiao Ren” but cannot prove that “Jiao Ren” has been used in the manner recognized by the Trademark Law on the approved goods.

4.    Other Trademarks applied for Registration by Ma

Ma also applied for the registration of more than 30 trademarks including 'Taylor', 'Jinbury', 'Jinshifu', 'Suihao mattress', 'Taylor Burton', 'Gerio Pili', etc. The aforementioned trademarks are including a large span of classes and belong to different industries, including trademarks similar in appearance, the same or similar in category with well-known trademarks such as 'Kimberly' and 'Suibao Mattress' of other brand owners. Neither could Ma prove that he registered the above trademarks with real intention to use nor could he give a reasonable explanation for his need for trademark registration, so the court considered that he had demonstrated an obvious pattern of trademark hoarding behavior.

Accordingly, Beijing IP Court determined that Ma's application for registration of the trademark “Jiao Ren” violated the principle of honesty and credibility, and his claim of trademark rights in this case was considered not justified.[6]


Based on the above, it was concluded that,  


The plaintiff filed an infringement lawsuit against the defendant for the latter’s proper use of the “Jiao Ren” logo and demanded compensation, which clearly constitutes an abuse of rights.



What are the Legal Consequences of Plaintiff’s “Abuse of Rights”?


Abuse of rights basically is a defense of the defendant for a lawsuit of IPRs infringement. When such defense proves to be justified in a case, the plaintiff would have to bear the legal consequences resulted from the action.


1.    Defendant is spared from Liability to Plaintiff


Taking a normal trademark infringement case as an example, when the plaintiff’s filing of the litigation constitutes an abuse of rights, the defendant is spared from the following liability to the plaintiff:


·         interlocutory and final injunctions;

·         damages, calculated based on the actual losses of the plaintiff, the profits made by the defendant or a simulated royalty;

·         reasonable costs incurred to the plaintiff; and

·         public apologies or declarations for the purpose of offsetting the negative effect of the infringing activities.


2.    Plaintiff is liable to pay Damages to Defendant


According to the recent official reply[7] made by the China Supreme People's Court to Shanghai High People's Court on June 3, 2021, the plaintiff should be liable to pay damages to the defendant if the following conditions are met:


·         plaintiff’s filing the IPRs infringement lawsuit constitutes an abuse of rights and damages the defendant’s lawful rights and interests as prescribed by law;

·         there are attorney's fees, transportation expenses, accommodation expenses or other reasonable expenses incurred to the defendant in the lawsuit; and

·         defendant bears the burden of proof for the above elements.


The defendant may request for damages through filing a counterclaim in the same lawsuit initiated by the plaintiff or may bring a separate suit to recover the aforesaid reasonable expenses from the plaintiff.



Key Takeaways


·         To successfully invoke the defense of “abuse of rights”, the defendant should prove that there is no legitimate interest exists for judicial protection on the part of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff’s right is exercised for a purpose other than its intended legal purpose.

·         The defendant may request the payment of attorney's fees, transportation expenses, accommodation expenses and other reasonable expenses incurred in the lawsuit where the plaintiff is considered an abuser of rights.

·         The defendant may request for damages through filing a counterclaim in the same lawsuit initiated by the plaintiff.

·         Every player of the market must, in the exercise of their intellectual property rights and in the performance of their duties related to such rights, act with justice, give other players their due respect and observe honesty and good faith.

·         If your business is falling prey to a trademark squatter, don’t back off easily as squatters are losing enforceability of their marks, day by day.




Through promoting creations and rewarding creativities, Intellectual Property Rights have so far proved to be beneficial to all walks of life in our society. However, abuse of such rights goes against the purpose of granting them, undermines the very foundation of the intellectual property system, and causes a counterproductive effect to the society. The abusers of such rights must face the legal consequences of their action.


[1] See Article 3, Interpretation by the Supreme People's Court of Several Issues Concerning the Application of Book One General Provisions of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China.

[2] See Liu Yijun & Tian Fen, Case Closure Information: To sue for trademark infringement based on trademark not obtained with good faith, constitutes rights abuse, Public WeChat Account “bjipct” (May 30, 2022).

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] See the Reply of the Supreme People's Court concerning the defendant's claim for compensation for reasonable expenses on the grounds of the plaintiff's abuse of rights in an intellectual property infringement lawsuit, issued on June 3, 2021.

  • 相关资讯 More
  • 点击次数: 4
    2023 - 02 - 03
    作者:刘文娟国家知识产权局于近日发布了《商标法修订草案(征求意见稿)》(以下简称“修订草案”),公开征求对商标法的修改意见。在上述修订草案中,我们可以欣喜地发现,立法机关已经开始在立法层面纠正目前商标注册“注而不用”、授权程序冗长繁复、恶意注册非法成本低的弊端。笔者仅就修订草案中涉及商标使用及打击恶意注册的部分进行分析,供大家参考。 第一, 修订草案增加了注册商标权利人主动提交商标使用说明的义务; 此条款借鉴了美国等国家关于商标注册人主动提交商标使用证据的相关规定,是对商标权利人最重要的修改条款。修订草案第六十一条规定,商标注册人应当自商标核准注册之日起每满五年之后的十二个月内,向国务院知识产权行政部门说明该商标在核定商品上的使用情况或者不使用的正当理由。 为了不过度增加权利人的举证义务且要达到督促注册商标使用、清理闲置商标的目的,对商标权利人主动提交商标使用说明的举证标准显然不能等同于撤销注册商标连续三年不使用申请中权利人的举证标准。然而为了不架空本条款,尚有待建立权利人承诺制度及诚信等级,督促商标权的实际使用。 第二,修订草案规定申请人不得重复申请、注册商标; 修订草案第十四条及第二十一条规定,申请注册的商标不得与申请人在同一种商品上在先申请、已经注册或者在申请日前一年内被公告注销、撤销、宣告无效的在先商标相同。 理想情况下,此条款本应是区分性知识产权的应有之意,商标权的可续展性决定了一件商标授权足以满足权利的正常使用。此条规定若能正确执行,将大量有效减少商标恶意注册行为。为规避商标法对商标使用的要求,不少恶意注册人采取“接力式注册商标”,不断重新申请已被撤销或无效宣告的商标,极大增加了权利人的维权成本。 然而,在实践中,因为权利人无法及时清理在先商标的阻碍,不得已需要“接力式申请”,以避免...
  • 点击次数: 6
    2023 - 01 - 13
  • 点击次数: 11
    2022 - 12 - 30
  • 点击次数: 7
    2022 - 12 - 23
    作者:金涟伊2021年10月28日发布的《“十四五”国家知识产权保护和运用规划》中指出,要“推动企业实施商标品牌战略,加强商标品牌资产管理,强化商标使用导向,支持开展海外商标布局,培育具有市场竞争力、国际影响力的知名商标品牌”。加强建设高质量的商标品牌,企业可以从做好商标管理做起,注册商标和未注册商标的管理重点略有区别。 一、注册商标的管理 注册商标是由企业向国家知识产权局提交申请,经国家知识产权局审核通过并公告注册的商标。商标注册后可获得商标注册证,列明该商标的注册号、商标标识、核定使用商品或服务类别及项目、注册人、注册人地址、注册日期及有效期等信息。商标注册证记载该商标的关键信息,是商标注册人拥有商标专用权的重要凭证,企业应当注意留存。并且商标专用权届满前,企业应根据需要及时续展。 实践中,为向公众宣告商标已获准注册,企业可在使用注册商标时在该商标右上角标注注册商标标志“®”,同时应在使用中注意以下几点: 1、 应注意保存使用证据 根据商标法第四十九条的规定,注册商标没有正当理由连续三年不使用的,任何单位或者个人可以向商标局申请撤销该注册商标。合法合规地使用注册商标并妥善留存商标使用证据是企业商标管理的重点内容。 商标使用证据的主要形式可分为书面材料及实物材料。书面材料包括交易文书、产品检验报告、加工销售合同发票、宣传海报、媒体广告材料、荣誉资质证书等;实物材料包括承载商标的产品容器、标签、说明手册、包装盒、服务场所装潢等。如需提交复印件或照片的,应委托公证机关办理公证。 2、 应注意维护商标专用权 商标获准注册后,商标注册人便在核定使用的商品服务上享有商标专用权,可对侵犯其商标专用权的情况主动进行商标行政、司法保护,以维护合法权益。积极维护商标权有助于企业建立...
× 扫一扫,关注微信公众号
Copyright© 2008 - 2020北京市铭盾律师事务所京ICP备09063742号-1犀牛云提供企业云服务