The case of Honeysuckle mosquito repellent Trademark

"Honeysuckle"（"金银花" in Chinese) is a quite popular brand of a mosquito repellent in China.

Recently, China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) has overturned first and second instance rulings issued by two lower courts in a trademark case involving Honeysuckle that has drawn nationwide attention.

Since 2018, hundreds of honeysuckle mosquito repellent floral water manufacturers across China have been sued for allegedly infringing on the "Honeysuckle" trademark owned by Shanghai Bili Cosmetics Co., Ltd (hereinafter "Bili").

Bili has claimed a total of more than 12 million yuan (over 1.6 million US dollars) in its numerous lawsuits against manufacturers of honeysuckle floral water, winning in most cases.

Some manufacturers have been ordered to compensate Bili for trademark infringement by tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of yuan.

Many have filed appeals in courts throughout China. Among them, the appeal filed by Suzhou Shiyan Biology Household Necessities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Shiyan") was accepted by the SPC in March 2022.

The acceptance of an appeal by the SPC suggests that the case has reached a higher level of judicial review, indicating its significance and complexity.

In China, in fact, the SPC serves as the highest judicial authority, and its decisions can have significant implications for legal precedent. If the SPC accepted the appeal, it would likely mean that they are reviewing the case and will make a final decision, which could have wide-ranging effects on the outcome of the dispute.

In January 2024, Shiyan received the judgment issued by the SPC which reverses the lower courts' rulings.

According to the ruling, the SPC affirmed that "honeysuckle" is considered a traditional Chinese herbal medicinal ingredient without distinctive character. This suggests that the court concluded that "honeysuckle" is a generic or descriptive term commonly used to refer to a type of herb, rather than a unique identifier associated with a specific brand or source.

As a result, the court determined that Shiyan's use of "honeysuckle" in the name of its products did not constitute trademark infringement. This decision likely hinged on the principle that trademark protection typically applies to distinctive marks that serve to identify the source of goods or services and prevent consumer confusion. 

Since "honeysuckle" was deemed lacking in distinctive character, its use by Shiyan was not considered infringing upon any existing trademark rights.

This ruling highlights the importance of considering the distinctiveness of trademarks in legal disputes. Generic or descriptive terms that are commonly used within an industry or to describe certain products may not be eligible for trademark protection or may have limited protection compared to more distinctive marks.

It's worth noting that while this ruling sets a precedent in this particular case, each trademark dispute is unique and can be influenced by various factors, including the specific facts and circumstances, applicable laws, and judicial interpretations.

This decision, anyway, aligns with an earlier invalidation of the trademark "honeysuckle" by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) in September 2022.

Interestingly, historical records indicate that the CNIPA had invalidated the "Honeysuckle" trademark back in 1994 due to "improper registration". However, despite the 1994 decision, implementation was not carried out for unknown reasons. Eventually the trademark was transferred several times and passed to Bili.

It appears that the cancellation of the trademark for "honeysuckle" by the CNIPA in 1994 due to "improper registration" played a significant role in the subsequent legal proceedings.

The fact that the trademark was canceled by the CNIPA in 1994 suggests that there were issues with its original registration, potentially related to improper procedures, lack of distinctiveness, or other reasons that rendered the trademark invalid or ineligible for protection.

However, despite the CNIPA's decision to cancel the trademark in 1994, it seems that the implementation of this decision did not occur, possibly due to administrative or procedural reasons that are not specified.

As a result, the trademark remained in circulation and was eventually transferred multiple times, ultimately landing with Bili.

This historical background underscores the complexities and challenges that can arise in trademark disputes, especially when there are issues with the original registration or administrative decisions.

It also highlights the importance of effective implementation and enforcement mechanisms to ensure the integrity of the trademark system and prevent confusion or conflicts among rights holders.