Supreme People’s Court's evolving attitude to letters of consent
New draft regulations – as well as a survey of recent cases – suggest that the Supreme People’s Court is starting to take letters of consent seriously when it comes to conflicts with prior marks
In October 2014 the Supreme People’s Court published its Draft Regulations on Certain Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases Involving the Granting and Determination of Trademark Rights for public comment. Article 20 (on co-existence agreements) states that where the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) refuses a trademark application, decides that a mark shall not be registered or adjudicates to invalidate a registered mark based on its conflict with prior mark(s), if the owner(s) of the prior mark(s) and the owner of the trademark at issue reach an agreement during the course of litigation and consent is given to registration of the later mark, the court may permit this. While this appears to be the first time that the term ‘co-existence agreement’ has arisen in Chinese judicial interpretations, such instrument – as well as its easier substitute, ‘letter of consent’ – has in fact been used to overcome ex officio refusals for years.
This article is part of World Trademark Review's premium intelligence and is only available to subscribers.
Register to access two of our subscriber only articles per month
Subscribe for unlimited access to articles, in-depth analysis and research from the World Trademark Review experts
What our customers are saying
"There is no doubt that World Trademark Review is an important tool for people dealing with trademark matters"
Maria de Lourdes Lopes Dias
Lopes Dias & Associados
Subscribe to World Trademark Review to receive access to the full range of trademark intelligence, insight, and case law, as well as our guides, rankings and daily market insight delivered to your inbox.