Recently, LegalOne, a globally recognized rating agency for commercial transactions and dispute resolution projects, released its latest project ratings.

The case "Erdos Resources Secures Appellate Reversal in Trademark Rejection Dispute, Overcoming Geographical Name Prohibition," handled by Jiaquan Shang, Partner at Globe-Law Law Firm, and Lianhua Xu, Lawyer at Globe-Law Law Firm, was successfully listed and awarded the "Remarkable" rating.

Case Summary

The applicant in this case is Inner Mongolia Erdos Resources Co., Ltd., a company based in Ordos, Inner Mongolia, with business operations spanning apparel, energy, and other sectors. The company applied to register the composite trademark No. 71040664 "Erdos ERDOS" (word and device). During the rejection review proceedings, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) found that the mark violated Article 10, Paragraph 2 of the Trademark Law (which prohibits the registration of marks containing the name of an administrative division at or above the county level) and rejected the registration application for the designated goods. Erdos Resources challenged this decision by filing an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. The court of first instance upheld the CNIPA's rejection decision. The legal team led by Lawyer Jiaquan Shang was subsequently retained to handle the appeal. The Beijing Higher People's Court reversed both the first-instance judgment and the CNIPA's rejection review decision, and ordered the CNIPA to issue a fresh decision. The company's core trademark ultimately obtained registration protection.

In practice, cases invoking Article 10(2) of the Trademark Law are seldom reversed on appeal. The principal challenge in this case was to overcome the absolute ground for refusal under Article 10(2) concerning geographical names. The legal team needed to demonstrate, through extensive evidence of use and market recognition, that "Erdos" had acquired a meaning and source-identification function distinct from its geographical significance. The team conducted a detailed examination of the etymology and semantic evolution of the term "Erdos," systematically presenting to the court its dual character as both a geographical name and a corporate trademark, and effectively constructing the factual and logical trajectory from a regional designation to a commercial identifier.

Centering on the core proposition that the trademark had developed an independent source-identification function through long-term use, the team compiled and submitted extensive commercial evidence, including multi-year sales contracts, invoices, media reports, honorary certificates, and sales data, comprehensively demonstrating the actual scale of use and market influence of the "Erdos" trademark, and proving that it had acquired a commercial identification significance no longer directly tied to its geographical meaning.

The victory in this case not only safeguarded the core brand strategy interests of Erdos Resources, but also provided an important reference precedent for overcoming the geographical name registration restriction under Article 10(2) of the Trademark Law.