CHANG TSI
Insights
Recently, the administrative dispute case filed by Under Armour, Inc. ("Under Armour") against the China National Intellectual Property Administration ("CNIPA") and third party Joyful Treasure (Far East) Limited ("Joyful Treasure") regarding a request for trademark invalidation, represented by Partner Michael Fu's team of Chang Tsi & Partners, concluded with a complete victory at first instance before the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. This case is of landmark significance: it marks the first time the "UNDER ARMOUR" trademark has been formally recognized as a well-known trademark in Chinese administrative litigation proceedings. The scope of protection successfully extended across three Nice classification classes, reaching Class 34 goods such as "cigarettes and cigarette cases" and Class 32 goods such as "beer and fruit juice," fully demonstrating Chang Tsi & Partners' deep professional expertise in well-known trademark recognition and cross-class protection.
(1) The Disputed Trademarks
In 2019, Nantong Gangzha District Huasheng Rosewood Furniture Factory (the "Original Registrant") filed applications with the Trademark Office of CNIPA for two trademarks — Registration Nos. 37063813 and 37068004 — designated for use on Class 34 goods including "cigarettes, cigarette cases, and cigar cases," and Class 32 goods including "beer, fruit juice, and bottled water," respectively.
Both disputed trademarks are composed of the letter mark "UNDER ARMOUR" combined with the Chinese characters "铠甲骑军." The core identifying element "UNDER ARMOUR" is highly similar to Under Armour’s earlier registered trademark No. 3463214 in terms of letter composition, pronunciation, and overall visual impression, to a degree sufficient to cause the relevant public to be confused as to the source of the goods, or to mistakenly believe that there is a specific association between the disputed trademarks and Under Armour, Inc.
(2) Reputation of the Cited Trademark
Under Armour, Inc. is a globally leading professional sportswear enterprise, and its "UNDER ARMOUR" brand enjoys an exceptionally high reputation in the global sporting goods market. Its trademark No. 3463214 "UNDER ARMOUR" was registered on February 14, 2005, approved for use on Class 25 goods including "clothing, shirts, hats, and T-shirts." Through years of cultivation and sustained investment, the trademark has accumulated a very high degree of recognition and goodwill in the Chinese market, forming a stable brand awareness and strong market association among the relevant public, and fully satisfying all criteria for well-known trademark recognition under Article 14 of the Trademark Law.
(3) Assignment
On July 20, 2023, the two disputed trademarks were approved for assignment by CNIPA and transferred to the third party. After the assignment, neither of the two trademarks has been put into commercial use. Despite the reputation and influence that the trademarks already possessed, the third party accepted the assignment without legitimate commercial justification. This conduct has resulted in the occupation of trademark resources. This not only contradicts the fundamental functions of the trademark system but also restricts the reasonable utilization of trademark resources by the relevant public, thereby having a certain negative impact on the trademark registration order and the market competition environment.
(4) Invalidation Request and the Challenged CNIPA Decision
In order to protect the exclusive rights in its well-known trademark and core brand interests, and to effectively guard against dilution of brand distinctiveness and damage to goodwill, Under Armour filed requests for trademark invalidation with CNIPA in 2024, asserting that the registration of the two disputed trademarks violated Article 13(3) (reproduction or imitation of a well-known trademark) and Article 44(1) (registration obtained through other improper means) of the Trademark Law. However, on April 30, 2025, CNIPA issued the challenged decisions finding that the grounds for invalidation were not established and ruling to maintain the registrations of both disputed trademarks.
(5) Filing of Administrative Litigation
Dissatisfied with the above decisions, Under Armour retained Chang Tsi & Partners and assembled a dedicated representation team comprising attorneys Fu Tongjie, Luo Yang, and Cui Yanbo, who filed administrative proceedings before the Beijing Intellectual Property Court on June 11, 2025. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court accepted the case on September 9, 2025, and held a public hearing on November 25, 2025.
At the hearing, the representation team focused on three core contested issues — whether the "UNDER ARMOUR" trademark constitutes a well-known trademark, whether the disputed trademarks constitute reproduction or imitation of a well-known trademark, and whether the registration of the disputed trademarks was obtained through improper means — fully presenting their submissions, filing a complete evidentiary chain, and precisely rebutting each of CNIPA’s defensive positions.
Upon review, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court accepted our submissions in full and rendered a first-instance judgment revoking CNIPA’s challenged decisions issued in respect of the two disputed trademarks (Shang Ping Zi [2025] Nos. 131847 and 131845) and ordering CNIPA to re-issue decisions on the invalidation requests. As no party filed an appeal within the statutory period, the judgment has taken legal effect, and our representation concluded with a complete victory.
In the field of administrative disputes over trademark authorization and confirmation, the recognition of well-known trademark status, the application of cross-class protection, and the determination of bad-faith registration have always been the core contested issues in such cases and the key variables determining the outcome. This case, as a paradigmatic example combining all three elements — "first-time well-known recognition + cross-class protection + bad-faith determination" — presents three mutually reinforcing and progressively layered points that together constitute the core logical framework for the victory, and carries important reference value for the handling of similar cases in the industry.
(1) Well-Known Trademark Recognition: The Essential Prerequisite for Victory
"UNDER ARMOUR" possesses strong trademark distinctiveness and inherent identifying power, providing a natural advantage for the claim of well-known trademark recognition. Drawing on Article 14 of the Trademark Law and the relevant judicial interpretations, the representation team systematically constructed a complete and solid evidentiary chain across multiple dimensions — including the duration of trademark use, market share, the scale and geographic scope of advertising and promotion, industry recognition, and the degree of awareness among the relevant public — comprehensively demonstrating that the "UNDER ARMOUR" trademark has achieved a high degree of recognition and stable market perception in relation to Class 25 apparel goods in the Chinese market, and successfully persuading the court to recognize the trademark as well-known.
It is particularly noteworthy that this case marks the first time the "UNDER ARMOUR" trademark has been expressly recognized as a well-known trademark in Chinese administrative litigation proceedings, carrying significant precedential value and providing the indispensable statutory prerequisite for the subsequent realization of cross-class protection.
(2) Establishing Goods Association: The Key Path to Cross-Class Protection
Under the Classification of Similar Goods and Services, the Class 34 cigarettes and Class 32 beverage goods designated for use under the disputed trademarks fall into different categories from the Class 25 apparel goods for which the "UNDER ARMOUR" well-known trademark is approved, and do not constitute similar goods — meaning cross-class protection of the well-known trademark faces considerable formal obstacles.
In response, the representation team invoked Article 13 of the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases Involving the
Authorization and Determination of Trademark Rights, arguing that cross-class protection of a well-known trademark should comprehensively take into account substantive factors including the distinctiveness and degree of recognition of the cited trademark, the degree of similarity between the marks, the degree of association between the goods, and the degree of overlap among the relevant public, and should not be mechanically confined to the existing classification framework of the Classification of Similar Goods and Services.
In the specific circumstances of this case, the cigarettes and beverages designated under the disputed trademarks and the apparel goods approved for "UNDER ARMOUR" all belong to the sphere of everyday consumer goods, with a highly overlapping target consumer group and extensive cross-over among the relevant public. Actual use of the disputed trademarks would be sufficient to cause the relevant public to mistakenly believe there is a specific association with the "UNDER ARMOUR" well-known trademark, thereby diluting the distinctiveness of the well-known trademark and damaging its goodwill. The above line of argument was ultimately accepted by the court, successfully breaking through the class barrier and achieving comprehensive cross-class protection of the well-known trademark.
(3) Bad-Faith Registration: A Powerful Supporting Ground for Victory
Pursuant to Articles 24 and 25 of the Supreme People’s Court Provisions referenced above, conduct that disrupts trademark registration order or improperly occupies public resources through means other than deception constitutes "other improper means" within the meaning of Article 44(1) of the Trademark Law; where the cited trademark enjoys a high degree of recognition, if the applicant for or assignee of the disputed trademark insists on acquiring it without legitimate justification, bad faith may be presumed in judicial practice.
Through a comprehensive review of the trademark registration histories of both the Original Registrant and Joyful Treasure, the representation team established a habitual pattern of large-scale copying and bad-faith registration of other parties’ well-known brand trademarks; combined with the objective fact that Joyful Treasure persisted in accepting the assignment of the disputed trademarks with full knowledge of the reputation of the "UNDER ARMOUR" trademark, the team constructed a logically complete and airtight case for bad-faith determination, powerfully arguing that the registration of the disputed trademarks constituted "registration obtained through other improper means," and further solidifying the foundation for victory.
Reviewing the case as a whole, the representation team grounded their work in the core contested issues, applied legal provisions and judicial interpretations with precision, made full use of the principles of consistent adjudication of like cases and consistency of examination, and through rigorous marshalling of evidence, disciplined legal argumentation, and precise courtroom advocacy, effectively rebutted the defensive positions of the defendant and the third party, ultimately securing the court’s full support for our claims, and bringing the case to a successful conclusion with a legally effective judgment.
The victory in this case carries typical significance at three levels:
For the client: This case achieved the first recognition of "UNDER ARMOUR" as a well-known trademark in Chinese administrative litigation proceedings, successfully overturned an erroneous administrative decision, laid a solid foundation for the ultimate invalidation of the disputed trademarks, effectively guarded against the risks of dilution of brand distinctiveness and damage to goodwill, and further consolidated Under Armour’s competitive brand advantage in the Chinese and global sporting goods market.
For the industry: This case established a clear adjudicative logic framework of "first-time well-known recognition + cross-class protection + bad-faith determination," delivering a powerful deterrent against speculative market conduct involving the bad-faith hoarding and squatting of well-known trademarks, helping to regulate trademark registration order, and providing a highly practical reference model for rights holders in the industry facing similar enforcement challenges.
For judicial practice: This case further strengthened the level of judicial protection for well-known trademarks, and clarified that the determination of goods association should not be mechanically applied through the Classification of Similar Goods and Services but should instead be assessed holistically in conjunction with substantive factors including the target consumer group, sales channels, and the perceptions of the relevant public, providing a valuable judicial practice example for the construction of a fair, just, and orderly system of intellectual property judicial protection.
