Inthehigh-profilepatentinfringementdisputesbetweentheChinesecompanyInnoscienceandInfineon(aspartoftheglobalpatentwarbetweenthetwocompanies),theSupremePeople'sCourt(SPC)maintainedapreliminaryinjunctionissuedbythelowercourtagainstInfineonconcurrentlywiththefirst-instancejudgment,andinitsrulingSPCprovidedhithertotheclearestguidanceonhowarequestforsuchapreliminaryinjunctionshouldbeevaluated.Thiscasereinforcesaproceduralparadigmalreadyreflectedinanumberofpreviouscourtcases:thepatentownercantrytoapplyforapreliminaryinjunctionwhenitbelievesthatthecourtisreadytomakeafavorablefirst-instancejudgmentandthepatentindisputehasbeenupheldbythepatentofficeintheinvalidationactionfiledbytheaccusedinfringer.Meanwhile,SPC’smarketshareanalysisinitsrulinghasdrawncriticismsfromobserversforanumberofreasons.ProceduralparadigmbuiltfrompreviouscasesThelowercourtgranted,andSPCmaintained,Innoscience’srequestforapreliminaryinjunctionafter(1)thelowercourthadfoundinfringementinitsfirst-instancejudgment,and(2)thepatentoffice(andBeijingIPCourt)hadupheldthevalidityofthepatentsindisputeininvalidationactionsfiledbyInfineon.Thisproceduralparadigmisbuiltupon3previouscases:theXinheCheng(新和成)case(fortradesecretinfringement),Qualcommv.Apple(forpatentinfringement)andtheXianglansu(香兰素orvanilline)case(alsofortradesecretinfringement).TheQualcommv.Applecasewasslightlydifferentonlyinthatwhenthefirst-instancecourtissuedthepreliminaryinjunction,ithasnotissueditsjudgmentbuthadcompletedthehearingsoninfringementanalysisandthuswasquiteconfidenttomakeaninfringementfinding.TheabovehistoryimpliesthattheChinesejudiciaryhasrecognizedthis"post-judgment,pre-finality"paradigmasoneunderwhichthecourtshouldfeelrelativelycomfortabletograntapreliminaryinjunctioniftherelevantfactorsarebelievedtohavebeenmet.Suchapreliminaryinjunctiongrantedinthemiddleofasuitmaynotbeasdesirableasapre-suitpreliminaryinjunctionbutmaystillbeveryvaluableforthepatentownerifitisissuedonacriticaljuncture.ThiswaslikelythecaseforInnoscienceasitobtainedthisinjunctionorderwhenithadjustreceivedanunfavorablerulinginGermanandmixedrulingsfromtheUSITC.PrimaryfactorstobeconsideredPreliminaryinjunctionsarebehavioralpreservationmeasuresunderthePRCCivilProceduresLaw.SPCinitsjudicialinterpretation“ProvisionsonSeveralIssuesConcerningtheApplicationofLawintheReviewofBehavioralPreservationCasesinIntellectualPropertyDisputes”providesguidanceonthespecificfactorsthecourtsshouldexaminetodecidewhethertograntapreliminaryinjunctioninthecontextofIPdisputes.SPCappliedtheguidancetothespecificfactsofthiscase,thusprovidingmoreclaritytothevariousstipulationsinthejudicialinterpretation.The5majorfactorsevaluatedbySPCare:1.Factualandlegalbasis(likelihoodofsuccess)UnderSPC’sanalysis,thelowercourt’sfindingofinfringementinitsjudgmentandthepatentoffice’supholdingofthepatentindisputeprovideaverystrongfactualandlegalbasisforapreliminaryinjunction.Fromthiscase,andfromanothermuchnewercaseinwhichSPCrejectedthepatentowner’srequestforapreliminaryinjunction(seehttps://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/KRgNDDsCaXGYDNO9JpuhhA),itisclearthatSPCstillevaluatesthepatentowner’slikelihoodofeventualsuccessunderthis“factualandlegalbasis”cover(theabove-mentionedjudicialinterpretationonbehavioralpreservationmeasureswhenitwasadoptedusedthe“factualandlegalbasis”languageinplaceofthe“likelihoodofsuccess”languagepreviouslyusedinthecontextofpreliminaryinjunctions).2.IrreparableharmSPCfoundthisfactorsatisfiedonthegroundthattheaccusedproductsdirectlycompetewiththepatentedproducts,causingmarketshareloss,priceerosion,andlossof"first-moveradvantage"tothepatentee.ItisnoteworthyherethatInfineonhassubmittedevidencethatInnoscience’srelevantmarketshareshaveactuallyincreased,butSPCwasnotpersuaded.SPC’sreasoninghereisworthreadingverbatim(emphasisadded):“Second,forInfineon’sargumentsthatInnoscience’smarketsharedidnotdecreaseandproductiterationdidnotaffectmarketshares,Infineon’sevidenceisinsufficienttoprovethatthemarketsharesofInnoscience’spatentedproductsdidnotdecrease.And,theimpactonmarketsharesfromtheaccusedproductsisnotlimitedtoreductionofmarketshares,butcouldalsobeintheformofreductionofthegrowthofmarketshares.Sincetheaccusedproductsareindirectcompetitionwiththepatentedproducts,salesoftheaccusedproductsmusthavenegativeimpactonthemarketsharesofthepatentedproducts.Thefastiterationcycleof2~3yearsoftherelevantproductsfurtherunderscoresthisnegativeimpact.”SPC’sanalysisherehasdrawncriticisms.Onecriticismisthatitessentiallymakestheburdenimpracticallyhighfortheaccusedinfringertoprovethatitssalesoftheaccusedproductsdidnotnegativelyaffectthepatentowner’smarketshare,asSPC’sanalysisimpliesthattheaccusedinfringernotonlyneedstoprovethatthemarketsharesofthepatentedproductsdonotfallorevenhaveactuallyincreased,butfurtherneedstoprovethattheshareswouldnotgoevenhigherintheabsenceoftheaccusedproducts,whichisahypotheticalscenarioalmostimpossibletoprove.Anothercriticismisthatthebasictheorybehindthemarketshareanddirectcompetitionanalysishasblurredtheboundarybetweenpreliminaryinjunctionsandpermanentinjunctions(inChina,thistheoryhasbeenthefoundationforpermanentinjunctions).SomeobservershavefurthernotedapparentinconsistencyinSPC’smarketshareanalysisbetweenthiscaseandtheDreamev.Roborockcasein2024.Inthatcase,therewasalsoevidencethatthepatentowner’smarketshareshadactuallyincreased,andSPCspecificallyrecognizedthispointandheldthat"therewasnoevidenceofasignificantreductioninmarketshares"asoneofthereasonstonullifythelowercourt’spreliminaryinjunctionorder(ofcourse,onecanarguethattheDreamecaseisdifferentfromthiscaseinamajoraspectasSPCalsopointedout:thepatentownerinthatcasehadalongdelayinapplyingforapreliminaryinjunction,whichSPCheldasstrongevidencetherewasnourgencyorirreparableharmtothepatentowner).Giventheabove,andgiventhetimingoftheissuanceofthispreliminaryinjunction,someobservers(particularlyforeigners)havequestionedwhetherSPChadextralegalconsiderationsinitsdecisionmaking.ThisChinesepreliminaryinjunctionwasissuedapproximatelyonemonthaftertheUSITC'srulingsintheUSdisputesbetweenthetwocompaniesandatatimewhenInnosciencehadlostinGermany.Againstthisbackdrop,someinternationalcommentatorshavequestionedwhethertheSPC'srulingwasaimedatprovidingstrategicleveragetoaChinesecompanyfacinglitigationpressuresabroad.3.BalanceofhardshipsOnthispoint,SPCheldthatthebalancetipsinfavorofthepatentee.Itstatedthatonceafirst-instancejudgmenthasfoundinfringement,theallegedinfringer,asagood-faithbusinessoperator,hasadutyofprudencetoceasetheinfringingactsoutofrespectforthejudgmentandthepatent.Thispositionisalsonewtomanypractitioners,asagainittoagoodextentblurstheboundarybetweenpreliminaryinjunctionsandpermanentinjunctions.4.PublicinterestsSPCheldthattheaccusedproductsarenotpublicwelfaregoods(e.g.,unrelatedtohealthorsafety),andsubstitutesexist.Therewasnodisputeonthispoint.5.SecurityInnosciencehasprovidedacashbondofRMB10million,whichtheSPCfoundsufficient.Thelowercourt’srulingalsoincludesanorderthatifevidenceshowsthatthelossInfineonsuffersfromthepreliminaryinjunctionisexceedingthisamount,Innoscienceshallprovideadditionalsecurity.

LexFieldactedonbehalfofaworld-renownedforkliftmanufacturerinthefirst-instancetrialofanadministrativelawsuitregardingtheinvalidationofatrademark.TheBeijingIntellectualPropertyCourtruled,inaccordancewithArticle44.1oftheTrademarkLawofthePeople’sRepublicofChina,thatthedisputedtrademarkwasregisteredthroughimpropermeansandshouldbeinvalidated.Thisfirst-instancejudgmenthasnowtakeneffect.Thedifficultyinthiscaseliesin:Whentheinvalidationactionwasfiled,thedisputedtrademarkhadbeenregisteredforoverfiveyears.Thedisputedtrademarksomehowdiffersfromtheclient’spriortrademarkintermsofitsliteralcomposition.Althoughtheclientisaleadingcompanyintheindustry,itspriortrademarkhasnorecordsofwell-knowntrademarkrecognition.Underthecurrentpolicyenvironment,it’sverydifficulttoobtainwell-knowntrademarkrecognitionthroughadministrativelitigationforthefirsttime.Theapplicantofthedisputedtrademarkdidnotengageinanysignificantactsofcopyingorregisteringotherentities’pre-existingtrademarksonalargescale.Therefore,intheinvalidationproceeding,theCNIPAupheldtheregistrationofthedisputedtrademark.ThecourtmadeabreakthroughapplicationofArticle44.1oftheTrademarkLaw.Eventhoughmorethanfiveyearshadpassedsincetheinvalidationactionwasfiled,thecourttookintofullconsiderationthemaliciousintentoftheapplicantofthedisputedtrademarkinitsactualuse,aswellasthemaliciousapplicationsmadebyaffiliatedcompaniesoftheapplicant.Asaresult,thedisputedtrademarkwasinvalidated.LexFieldteamdidn’tmerelyfocusonthedisputedtrademarkapplicant’sowntrademarkapplicationpractices.Instead,weconductedthoroughon-siteandonlineinvestigationsintotheapplicant.Wegatheredandsubmittedevidencefromvariousaspectstoprovetheapplicant’smaliciousbehaviorinitsactualoperations.Thisincludedimitatingtheclient’sproduct’sdesign,colorscheme,packaging,trademarkplacement,fontstyle.Theapplicantalsousedtheclient’strademarkaskeywordstoattracttrafficononlineplatforms,andhighlightedthehighsimilaritybetweenitsownproductsandthoseoftheclientinitspromotionalemails.Atthesametime,althoughtheapplicantofthedisputedtrademarkdidnotengageinanyobvioustrademarksquattingactivities,LexFieldteamconductedathoroughinvestigationofallentitiesrelatedtotheapplicant.Itwasfoundthattheseentitieswerealsointhesameindustryandhadengagedintrademarksquatting.LexFieldteamcompiledthisinformationintowrittensubmissionsandcharts,clearlydemonstratingtherelationshipsbetweenthevariousentitiesandtheirmaliciousactions.Thisprovidedasolidfoundationforwinningthecase.Thiscasereflectstheaggressivestancetakeninrecentyearstocombatmalicioustrademarkregistrations.Thecourtdoesnotmerelyrelyonrigidcriteriasuchasthenumberandcategoryoftrademarkapplications,orthesimilarityofthetrademarksthemselves,todetermine“impropermeans.”Instead,italsotakesintoaccountanyimproperpracticesrelatedtotheactualuseofthetrademarks.Thisapproachismoreflexibleandcomprehensive,therebyservingthegoalofcombatingmaliciousregistrations.Forrightholders,thistrendisundoubtedlybeneficial.Inaddition,rightholdersmustalsoincreasetheireffortsininvestigatingsuchcases,thoroughlyidentifyinganymaliciousactivitiesbytheopposingpartiesandconductingthoroughanalyses.

Recently,theBeijingHighPeople'sCourtofficiallyreleasedthe2025"TopTenIPRJudicialProtectionCases"and"TopTenTrademarkRightGrantingandVerificationCases".Thecase"'DEEPMIND'TrademarkInfringingonAIEnterprise'sTradeNameRights",representedbyLexFieldLawFirm,wasselectedintothe"TopTenTrademarkRightGrantingandVerificationCases".CaseReviewInthiscase,LexFieldactedforaworld-leadingartificialintelligenceenterpriseandsuccessfullyinvalidatedtwodisputedtrademarksthatwereidenticaltotheenterprise'stradename"DEEPMIND",filedforregistrationbyathirdpartyin2015.Throughprofessionalassessment,theLexFieldteamaccuratelyidentifiedthebreakthroughpointofthecaseandsuccessfullypersuadedtheBeijingIntellectualPropertyCourtandtheBeijingHighPeople'sCourttofullysupportourclaims,achievingvictoryinbothtrials.Thetypicalsignificanceandchallengesofthiscaseliein:a)Breakingthroughtheproceduralbarrierof"nosecondtrialforthesamematter":Thiscasewastheclient'ssecondinvalidationrequestforthesametrademark.Bysubmittingnewevidencegeneratedafterward,whichconfirmedthattheclient'stradenamehadgainedreputationbytheapplicationdateofthedisputedtrademark(2015),theLexFieldteamsuccessfullyovercametheproceduralobstacle,andtheevidencewasadoptedbythecourt.b)Expandingtheprotectionboundariesforinternationalenterprisetradenamerights:Asapurelytechnology-focusedforeignenterprisewithnophysicaloperationsortraditionalsalesevidenceinChina,theclientfacedinherentdifficultiesinprotectingitstradenamerights.TheLexFieldteamcreativelyarguedandsuccessfullydemonstratedthatthroughglobalmediacoverageandwidespreaddiscussionanddisseminationwithininternettechnologycommunities,itstradename"DEEPMIND"hadestablishedastableandclearreferentialrelationshipamongtherelevantpublicinChina,formingpriorrightsdeservingprotection.Thisviewpointreceivedexplicitsupportfromthecourt.c)Groundedinindustrycharacteristics,demonstratingjudicialforesight:Thejudgmentclearlystatedthatinhighlyglobalizedcutting-edgefieldssuchasartificialintelligence,protectingthetradenamesofforeignenterprisesthathavegainedreputationinChinathroughinternationalinfluenceisanecessarymeasuretoregulatemarketorder,guidedomesticmarketentitiestofocusonindependentinnovation,andparticipateinhigh-qualityinternationalcompetition.Thisreflectsthejudicialprotectionorientationtowardnewqualityproductiveforces.Thisselectionisnotonlyastrongsafeguardoftheclient'srightsandinterestsbutalsoafurtherrecognitionofLexField'sprofessionalcapabilities.Inthefuture,LexFieldwillcontinuetodeepenitspresenceintheintellectualpropertyfield,providehigh-qualityandforward-lookinglegalservicesforclientsinthecomplexandever-changingcommercialandlegalenvironment,andsupportenterpriseinnovationanddevelopment.

Recently,LEXFIELDrepresentedaworld-renownedoverseasdairycompanyandsuccessfullydefendedtheregistrationofitstrademarksinfiveinvalidationcases.Thefavorableoutcomeshavesafeguardedtheclient’scoretrademarkrights,providingsolidlegalsupportforitscontinuedbusinessexpansionandstableoperationsintheChinesemarket.Thedisputedtrademarksconsistof“letters+numbers”andareusedonacertainprobiotic.HavingbeenregisteredandusedinChinaforovertenyears,themarkshavegainedsignificantrecognitionandinfluence.Hadthetrademarksbeeninvalidated,theclient’sproductpromotionandsalesinChinawouldhavebeendirectlyimpacted,causingimmeasurableharmtoitsbusinessintheChinesemarket.Intheseriesofcases,thepetitionerprimarilyarguedthattheclient’strademarkslackeddistinctiveness.Uponreceivingtheclient’sinstruction,LEXFIELDteamconductedcomprehensiveresearchanddetailedanalysis,studiedthelegalgroundsandevidence,andfocusedonthefollowing:1.CollectingExtensiveEvidenceofTrademarkUseof“Letters+Numbers”:Collectedsubstantialevidencedemonstratingthatthe“letters+numbers”hadbeenusedinatrademarkmanner,provingthatthemarkspossesseddistinctivecharacterbythetimeofapplicationandhadestablishedauniqueassociationwiththeclient.2.ArguingAgainstGenericness:Emphasizedintheresponsethatthedisputedtrademarksneitherconstitutedgenericnamesasdefinedbylaws,nationalstandards,orindustrystandardsnorhadtheybecomecustomarygenericnamesthroughuse.3.AddressingComparisonswithOtherCases:Inresponsetothepetitioner’sreferencetoothertrademarksthathadbeenrefusedorcancelledunderallegedlysimilarcircumstances,wepointedoutthatthosecasesinvolveddifferentcontexts—suchasbadfaithinapplicationorlackofrelevance.Wearguedthattheprincipleofconsistentexaminationstandardsrequiresthatvariablesbetakenintoaccount,includingtheexaminingauthority,groundsforreview,andthespecifictimingandcontextualbackground,andthatconclusionscannotbedrawnsolelybasedonidenticaltrademarkelements.Asaresult,theChinaNationalIntellectualPropertyAdministration(CNIPA)upheldLEXFIELD’sarguments,rejectedallgroundsraisedbythepetitioner,andmaintainedtheregistrationoftheclient’sfivetrademarks.ThiscaseofferssignificantinsightsforbothdomesticandinternationalenterprisesregardingtrademarkprotectioninChina.Werecommendthatcompaniesfocusonthefollowingaspectsinthetrademarkpractices:1.ConsciousTrademarkUse:Whenusingregisteredtrademarks,consciouslyreinforcetheuseasatrademark.Evenindescriptivecontexts,itisadvisabletoapplythe®symboltoindicateregisteredtrademarkuse.2.ClearLicensingTerms:Inlicensingagreements,stipulatethat:1)thelicenseemustusethe®symbol;and2)thelicenseeshallnotusethetrademarkasaproductnameoringredientname.3.ProactiveEnforcement:Activelyenforcerightsagainstothers’unauthorizedusetopreventtrademarkdilution.4.EvidencePreservation:Activelyretainevidence,includingproductpackaging,transactiondocuments,contracts,andenforcementrecords,toensuresufficientevidenceisavailableforfutureenforcementactions.

Attheendof2025,toregulatetrademarkuse,theChinaNationalIntellectualPropertyAdministration(CNIPA)issuedtheNoticeonStrengtheningtheManagementofTrademarkUse(hereinafterreferredtoasthe"Notice")alongwithitsinterpretations(hereinafterreferredtoasthe"Interpretation").TheNoticefocusesonregulatingthefollowingseventypesofillegalornon-complianttrademarkuse,clarifyingthatlocallawenforcementauthoritiesmayimposecorrespondingadministrativepenaltiesundertheTrademarkLawforsuchacts:1.Usingunregisteredtrademarksthataredeceptiveorotherwiseprohibited;2.Deceptiveuseofregisteredtrademarks;3.Usingunregisteredtrademarksasregisteredtrademarks;4.Failuretousearegisteredtrademarkwhereuseisrequired;5.Prominentlydisplayingthewords"Well-knownTrademark"incommercialactivities;6.Improperuseofcollectivemarksorcertificationmarks;7.Illegalagencyactivitiesbytrademarkagencies.IntheCNIPA'sInterpretation,the"BPXYD"trademarkinfringementcase,representedbyLexFieldLawOffices,wasincludedasanexamplefor"deceptiveuseofregisteredtrademarks".Itsignifiesthatthepathofseekingimmediatecessationofinfringementthroughadministrativecomplaintsagainstsuchfree-ridingbehaviors,characterizedby"lawfulregistrationbutillegaluse,"hasreceivedauthoritativeconfirmation.Thisarticle,referencingthecasesintheCNIPA'sInterpretation,introducestheconnotationsandcurrentenforcementtrendsconcerningtwotypesoftrademarkuseviolationsthatareofgreatconcerntoenterprises.I.DeceptiveUseofRegisteredTrademarksThistypeofillegalactincludestwoscenarios:wheretheactualuseofaregisteredtrademarkcausesthepublictobemisledaboutthequalityofgoods,andwhereitconstitutesfree-ridingontherightsofanotherproprietor.1.MisleadingastotheQualityofGoodsThisprimarilyreferstosituationswherearegisteredtrademarkisusedincombinationwithproductnames,advertisingslogans,packaging,orget-up,orwhereothermisleadingtermsareaddedduringuse,leadingthepublictomisunderstandspecificcharacteristicsofthegoods,suchasquality,origin,orproductionprocess.Forexample,usingaregisteredtrademark"鲜土"(freshsoil)oneggproducts(amarklaterdeclaredinvalidbytheCNIPA)intheactualform"农家鮮土鸡蛋"(farmfreshsoileggs,whentranslatedinChinesemeansthattheeggslaidbychickenthatarenotedinafactorybutarefedinafarmwithmorespacestomovearound)causedthepublictomistakenlybelievetheeggswerefarmeggs.2.AlteringtheUseofaRegisteredTrademarktoFree-rideonOtherProprietors’Trademark(Acommonscenarioinpractice)LexField'sCaseasanExample:Apetroleumcompanyregisteredthetrademark"BPXYD"forlubricatingoilproductsbutaltereditsuseinpracticetotheform"BPXYD",intendingtofree-rideonthewell-known"BP"trademarkoftherightsholder.Whilesimultaneouslyfilinganinvalidationrequestagainstthe"BPXYD"mark,LexFieldlawyersfiledacomplaintwithlawenforcementauthoritiestoquicklystoptheinfringement,primarilybasedonArticle49,Paragraph1oftheTrademarkLaw(unauthorizedalterationofaregisteredtrademark).TheenforcementauthorityacceptedLexField’spetition,issuedadministrativepenaltiesincludingafine,therebyswiftlystoppingtheinfringement.II.UseofUnregisteredTrademarksthatareDeceptiveorOtherwiseProhibitedAccordingtotheInterpretation,enforcementauthoritiesprimarilyfocusonthefollowingthreecategoriesofmisconduct:1.Usingunregisteredtrademarkscontainingtermslike"exclusivesupply","specialsupply","superior",or"national",whichmisleadthepublicregardingthesupplychannelorqualityofthegoods;2.Usingunregisteredtrademarkscontainingtermslike"selenium-rich","organic","zeroadditives",or"100%,"wheretheactualattributesofthedesignatedgoodsdonotmatchthemeaningoftheseterms,misleadingthepublicregardingthemainingredients,composition,orothercharacteristicsofthegoods;3.Usingunregisteredtrademarkscontainingplacenames,years,ortermslike"handmade"or"hand-beaten,"whichmisleadthepublicregardingtheorigin,productiontime,productionprocess,orothercharacteristicsofthegoods.LexField'sComments:1.Whennamingproductsoradvertising,enterprisesshouldproactivelyavoidusingthetermsmentionedinpoint1above.2.Forthetermsmentionedinpoints2and3,orothertrademarksrejecteddueto"misleading"provisions,evenifthetrademarkapplicationisrejected,theriskassociatedwithitsuseisrelativelylow,providedthatinactualuse,theproduct'squalityandothercharacteristicsgenuinelycorrespondtothemeaningofthetermsused.

Recently,LexFieldrepresentedarenownedforeignartificialintelligencecompanyintwotrademarkinvalidationadministrativelitigationcases,winningboththefirstandsecondinstances.TheBeijingIntellectualPropertyCourtandtheBeijingHighPeople'sCourt,basedonArticle32oftheTrademarkLawofthePeople'sRepublicofChina,ruledthattheregistrationofthedisputedtrademarksinfringedupontheclient'spriortradenamerights,andorderedtheinvalidationofthetwotrademarks,whichwereidenticaltotheclient'stradenameandappliedforregistrationin2015.Intheinvalidationstage,thecaseswerehandledbyanothertrademarkagency,andtheinvalidationswerenotsupportedbytheChinaNationalIntellectualPropertyAdministration(CNIPA).Aftertakingovertheadministrativelitigationproceedings,LexFieldteamconductedacomprehensiveandmeticulousreviewofthecasefacts,legalbasis,andevidencematerials.Byaccuratelyidentifyingthebreakthroughpointinthecases,theteamultimatelysuccessfullyoverturnedtheunfavorableinvalidationrulingsinthefirst-instanceofadministrativelitigations,withthesecond-instancecourtsubsequentlyaffirmingthefavorablejudgements.Thechallengesinthesecasesliein:1.Thereisariskof"doublejeopardy"inprocedure.Theseinvalidationproceedingsrepresentedthesecondattemptbytheclienttoinvalidatethedisputedtrademarks,andbothinvalidationrequestshadpreviouslybeenrejectedbytheCNIPA.2.Substantially,bothdisputedtrademarkswereappliedforregistrationin2015,withtheapplicationdateevenearlierthantheclient'sowntrademarkapplicationsinChina,makingtheclient'sbasisofrightsrelativelyweak.3.Asaforeignenterpriseprimarilyengagedincutting-edgeartificialintelligence,priortothefilingdateofthedisputedtrademarks,theclienthadnotdirectlyconductedbusinessinmainlandChina.Ithadnolocalbranches,andwasunabletoprovidetraditionalevidenceofreputation,suchassalescontracts,invoices,oradvertisingmaterials.Moreover,theapplicationdateofthedisputedtrademarkshasbeenoveradecade,makingtothecollectionofhistoricalevidenceparticularlychallenging.4.Theapplicantofthedisputedtrademarksisalocally-ownedprivateenterpriseofacertainscale,withoutobviouslarge-scaleinfringementormaliciousimitationofothers’trademarks.LexFieldteamconductedadetailedreviewofthecaseevidenceandultimatelydecidedtofocusonthebreakthroughpointofthepriorrightsofthetradenameunderArticle32oftheTrademarkLawofChinainthiscase.Inresponsetotheabovechallenges,LexFieldteamemphasizedandsupplementedtargetedpointsduringthetrialprocessandinpost-trialwrittenopinions,includingthefollowing:1.Toaddress"doublejeopardy"issue,LexFieldteammeticulouslycomparedthegroundsandevidencepresentedinthetwoinvalidationproceedings.Weparticularlysupplementedafavorablejudgmentfromanothercasethatrecognizedtheclient'stradenamehadachievedacertainlevelofrecognitionasearlyas2015.Weemphasizedthatthisjudgmentwasnewlygeneratedaftertheinitiationofthefirstinvalidationproceeding,constitutingsubstantialnewevidence.Thisclaimwasacceptedbythecourt.2.Regardingtheterritorialissueoftheclient'spriortradenameright,LexFieldteamarguedthat,althoughtheforeignenterprisewasneitherregisteredinmainlandChina,nordirectlyconductingbusinesshere,throughextensivemediacoverage,onlinediscussions,andtechnicalexchanges,asoleassociationbetweenthetradenameandtheclienthasbeenestablishedamongtherelevantpublicinmainlandChina.Assuch,theclient'stradenamehadgeneratedlegalinterestsinmainlandChinaandshouldbeprotected.Thecourtupheldtheseargumentsandruledthatthedisputedtrademarksinfringedupontheclient’spriortradenamerights.Thejudgmentsfurthernotedthatallowingtrademarksidenticaltothewell-knowntradenamesofotherstocoexistwouldnotonlyharmpriorrightsholders,butalsodamageconsumerinterestsanddisruptmarketorder.SuchcoexistencewouldbedetrimentaltotheeffectivecultivationofindependentbrandsbyChineseenterprisesandtheirparticipationinbroaderinternationalcompetition,therebynegativelyimpactingtheirlong-termdevelopment.ThesecasesareofsignificantimportanceforforeignenterprisestosafeguardtheirrightsinmainlandChina.Thecourtdidnotadherestrictlytotheliteralterritorialprinciple,traditionalmodesoftradenameuse,orconventionalevidentiaryrequirementsforreputation.Instead,thecourtinterpretedthelawinlightofitslegislativeintentandthespecificcharacteristicsoftheartificialintelligenceindustry.Indoingso,theyprovidedeffectiveprotectionforthepriortradenamerightsofforeignenterprises.Atthesametime,thecourtalsoprovidedguidancefromabroaderperspective,aimingtoregulatethemarketorderandassistthehigh-qualitydevelopmentofprivateenterprisesinChina,fullydemonstratingtheorganicunityoflegaleffectandsocialimpact.