The Beijing Intellectual Property Court on Thursday (July 16) publicly heard an administrative trademark dispute involving French luxury brand Louis Vuitton's parent company, Louis Vuitton Malletier, China's National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), and a garment business operator from Shantou, Guangdong Province.
The plaintiff is Louis Vuitton Malletier, the owner of the Louis Vuitton (LV) brand. The defendant is the CNIPA, while Huang Minyao, a clothing business operator from Shantou and the trademark applicant, appeared in court as the third party to the case.
Shortly after 9 a.m., a long queue formed at the security checkpoint inside the court's litigation service center. The hearing began at 9:30 a.m.
The case is an administrative lawsuit rather than a civil trademark infringement action filed by LV against a business operator.
According to publicly available information, Huang applied to register the disputed trademark, after which LV filed an opposition and/or an application to invalidate the trademark with the CNIPA. The CNIPA issued an administrative ruling that did not support LV's claims. Dissatisfied with the decision, LV filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.
The key issue before the court is whether the CNIPA's administrative ruling on the trademark was lawful. As the trademark applicant, Huang participated in the proceedings as a third party.
Legal experts noted that the CNIPA is legally authorized to issue rulings and decisions on trademark registration, trademark opposition, and trademark invalidation applications. In administrative litigation, the defendant is the government authority that made the contested administrative decision. Accordingly, the CNIPA is the proper defendant in trademark-related administrative cases, while the trademark applicant is typically listed as a third party because of its direct legal interest in the disputed administrative action.
The hearing came shortly after LV won a separate civil trademark infringement lawsuit against Chinese tea chain Molly Tea, securing RMB 10.3 million in damages. The case sparked widespread discussion over the public's differing perceptions of the traditional four-leaf clover cultural motif and commercial trademark rights.
Public court records show that this is the sixth time LV has sued the CNIPA. Of the previous five first-instance administrative cases, courts ruled in LV's favor in three, overturning the relevant administrative decisions and ordering the CNIPA to issue new rulings. In the other two cases, the courts dismissed LV's claims.
Legal experts stressed that the current case is entirely unrelated to LV's earlier civil lawsuit against Molly Tea. While the Molly Tea case concerned trademark infringement between private parties, the present case is an administrative lawsuit challenging the CNIPA's decision regarding trademark registration.
They added that the CNIPA reached different conclusions on Huang's trademark applications, approving some while rejecting others. To protect its trademark rights, LV has filed legal challenges against the relevant administrative decisions, involving more than 100 related disputes, making the overall situation relatively complex.
Related News:
LV opens restaurant in Seoul: Classic print dumplings priced at HK$255
Comment