Database of Well-Known Trademarks in China
(posted on our MP&W website) 10 January 2007, 20:30

Since China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, it has revised its trademark laws and regulations to bring them more in line with WTO rules and to provide companies with a better business environment regarding intellectual property protection. China has a centralized trademark registration system and implemented a "first-to-file" system for trademark registrations, rather than the "first-to-use" system generally adopted in countries such as the United States.

China's requirements for obtaining a trademark registration are basically the same as those in most countries, namely, the trademark must be distinctive, and must not conflict with an existing registration. The Trademark Office has a centralized database of all registered or applied-for trademarks.

In November 2006 the Supreme People's Court of China requested all Chinese high courts to submit all decisions made by them or lower courts, in which trademarks have been recognized as well-known. It also requested that future decisions where Chinese courts deem a trademark to be well-known, to be filed with the Supreme People's Court. The request was made for statistical purposes.

In China, both the courts (then called judicial recognition) or the China Trade Mark Office (CTMO) and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) (administrative recognition) are entitled to identify well-known marks.

In the past, CTMO and TRAB published their lists of well-known marks (administrative recognition). In 1987, Pizza Hut was the first foreign well-known trademark listed by the CTMO. In the latest list published on October 2006, 106 new marks were recognized as well-known in the second half of 2006. Among these marks, ten are foreign marks and include for example Nescafe, Panasonic, Honda, Toyota, Porsche and Red Bull.

As the Supreme People's Court has not published a list of well-known trademarks so far, a change is highly expected with the adoption of the reporting system. It is still not clear whether the respective judgments will also be published.