Recently, our firm successfully represented a globally renowned truck transportation company (hereinafter referred to as “our client”) in a trademark squatting case involving a Beijing-based lubricant company (hereinafter referred to as “the Beijing Lubricant Company”). The Beijing Intellectual Property Court has issued its judgment, finding that the Beijing Lubricant Company obtained its trademark registration through “improper means.”
Case Background: A Well-Known Trademark Targeted by Malicious Squatting
Our client, a German-registered company, enjoys a high level of global recognition in the fields of truck manufacturing and logistics transportation. Its primary trademark, “MXX,” identical to its company name, has strong market influence and high public awareness.
However, the Beijing Lubricant Company applied for the registration of the trademark “MXX Nanjie” (“MXX男杰”) for goods such as lubricants in Class 4—highly similar to our client’s “MXX” trademark—and highlighted in its promotional materials that its products using the disputed trademark originated from Germany.
Further investigation revealed that the Beijing Lubricant Company had filed over 150 trademark applications, including many identical or similar to well-known automobile brands, such as “X-ben ACCORD & Device,” “Suo-X-Ta,” “Meng-X-Ou,” “Kai-X-Rui,” “Pa-X-Luo,” and “Yi-X-Te Yuedong.” As a result, our client filed an invalidation request against the disputed trademark.
Rights Protection Process: Kangrui’s Multi-Dimensional Legal Strategy
During the administrative litigation phase, the Kangrui team conducted in-depth analysis and mounted forceful arguments from multiple perspectives:
1. Likelihood of Confusion due to Similar Marks
The “MXX Nanjie” trademark is similar to our client’s “MXX” mark, and the goods covered are closely related. Given our client’s strong reputation and high level of recognition, such similarity would easily cause confusion or misidentification among the relevant public.
2. Violation of the Principle of Good Faith
The Beijing Lubricant Company’s conduct seriously violated the principle of good faith under Article 7 of the Trademark Law. Its large-scale filing of trademarks identical or similar to well-known brands disrupts market order and harms the legitimate rights and interests of other businesses.
3. Registration Obtained by Improper Means
During both the invalidation and litigation stages, the Beijing Lubricant Company was unable to provide any evidence of trademark use or proof that the disputed trademark was filed for legitimate business needs. Its intent to maliciously squat on others’ trademarks was evident.
Under Article 44(1) of the Trademark Law, its behavior constituted obtaining registration by improper means.
The Kangrui team also submitted a list of additional trademark filings by the Beijing Lubricant Company that copied our client’s marks, further demonstrating its malicious intent and the disruptive impact on market order.
Judgment: Upholding Fairness and Legal Authority
Thanks to the persistent efforts of the Kangrui team, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court issued a just ruling on March 17, 2025. The court held that the Beijing Lubricant Company’s conduct constituted obtaining trademark registration “by improper means” under Article 44(1) of the Trademark Law, rejected its lawsuit, and upheld the CNIPA decision invalidating the disputed trademark.
This ruling not only provides strong protection for our client’s trademark rights but also delivers a powerful blow against trademark squatting. It sends a clear signal to the market: any attempt to obtain illegitimate benefits through malicious squatting will be met with strict legal sanctions.