Mengchun’s Comments
This judgment sends several important signals:
• Classification is not absolute
While the Classification remains a key reference, it is not determinative, especially where non-standard product names are involved.
• Industry perception can be decisive
Courts will increasingly rely on real-world industry understanding to define the scope of goods.
• Prior use and market structure matter
Established market practices and legitimate prior use can significantly influence infringement analysis.
• Caution with common terms
Marks consisting of common or descriptive expressions may enjoy narrower protection.
1. Issue
In trademark infringement cases, how should courts determine the scope of “approved goods” where the Nice Classification (CNIPA’s Classification of Similar Goods and Services) does not align with the general understanding of relevant industry players?
2. Key Takeaway
The Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) clarified that:
The determination of “identical goods” should primarily rely on the general understanding of relevant industry participants, taking into account objective factors such as function, use, raw materials, manufacturing sector, target consumers, and sales channels.
This principle becomes particularly important when the goods at issue are not standard names listed in the Classification.
In this case, the SPC held that:
- “Acidic silicone sealant” (commonly known as glass glue) falls within the scope of “silicone” as understood in the industry;
- Therefore, the defendant’s use of its registered mark did not exceed the approved scope of goods.
Combined with additional factors—such as prior use, lack of bad faith, established market presence, limited distinctiveness of the mark, and insufficient proof of the plaintiff’s reputation—the SPC ultimately found no trademark infringement and reversed the lower courts’ rulings.
3. Background
The defendant had used the mark “楓葉” (Traditional Chinese for “Maple Leaf”) on glass glue products since as early as 1997, and later secured multiple trademark registrations covering, inter alia, “silicone” in Class 1.
The plaintiff owned the mark “枫叶” (Simplified Chinese for “Maple Leaf”), registered in Class 1 for goods including adhesive products such as silicone sealants and glass glue.
The dispute arose when the defendant used “楓葉” on acidic silicone sealant products, which the plaintiff alleged constituted infringement.
4. Lower Court Decisions
Both the first-instance and appellate courts found infringement, reasoning that:
- The accused products (glass glue) fell within the plaintiff’s approved goods;
- According to the Classification, “silicone” (raw material) and “glass glue” (adhesive product) belong to different subclasses and are neither identical nor similar goods;
- Industry practice of loosely referring to silicone-based products as “silicone” should not override formal classification standards.
The courts therefore held that the defendant’s use exceeded the approved scope and awarded punitive damages up to RMB 30 million.
5. SPC Judgment
The SPC reversed, focusing on three key aspects:
(1) Scope of Approved Goods: Industry Understanding Matters
The SPC emphasized that:
- “Acidic silicone sealant” and “glass glue” are not standardized terms in the Classification;
- In such circumstances, industry perception becomes decisive.
Based on expert opinions, industry materials, and common usage, the SPC found that:
- Industry participants generally regard “silicone” as encompassing silicone-based sealants such as acidic silicone and glass glue;
- These products have a hierarchical (inclusive) relationship, rather than being strictly separate.
Thus, the defendant’s use fell within the approved scope of its “silicone” registration.
(2) Market Reality and Prior Use
The SPC gave significant weight to:
- The defendant’s prior use dating back to 1997;
- Long-term, continuous use leading to established market recognition;
- Earlier trademark filings by the defendant predating the plaintiff’s mark.
By contrast, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that its mark had acquired strong distinctiveness or reputation in connection with the relevant goods.
(3) Distinctiveness and Likelihood of Confusion
Although “枫叶” and “楓葉” are linguistically identical (simplified vs. traditional Chinese), the SPC noted:
- The term “Maple Leaf” is a common expression with limited inherent distinctiveness;
- The visual differences between simplified and traditional characters remain perceptible;
- No evidence showed intent to free-ride on the plaintiff’s goodwill.
Given the coexistence of both marks and their respective market presence, the SPC concluded that relevant consumers would not be confused.
6. Final Remarks
The SPC also noted that both parties hold valid registrations for similar marks covering related goods. It urged the parties to:
Act in good faith and use their marks strictly within approved scopes to minimize confusion.
Importantly, the Court made clear that, following this ruling, no further disputes should arise on the same factual basis.
Court:
Supreme People’s Court
Final Decision Date:
January 29, 2026
Case No.:
（2025）最高法民再345号
(2025) Zui Gao Fa Min Zai No. 345
