Superheroes always win: the Green Lantern movie case

Source: https://www.cbr.com/ Green Lantern: 10 Greatest Threats To The Universe That Hal Jordan Has Ever Fought

On December 7, 2020, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court confirmed the decision previously taken by CNIPA, who invalidated the “Green Lantern” trademark applied by Xingning Shixin Lamp Factory (兴宁市时新灯具厂) declaring that it was damaging the name and title of the Detective Comics Movie, and illegally enjoying its prior rights and interests.

Back in 2011, the Green Lantern movie was released in all Chinese movie theaters becoming one of the most popular movies of the year. Later, in 2012 Xingning applied for the Chinese trademark No. 10995845 for “绿灯侠" (“Green Lantern”) in class11 for light bulbs and related goods.

The trademark No. 10995845 for “绿灯侠” (“Green Lantern”) in class 11 was published for opposition on June 27th, 2013 and therefore, since no third party opposed to it, granted for registration on September 28th, 2013.

Meanwhile the creator of the subject Detective Comics has licensed its rights and interests to Warner Bros and enforcing the rights of protection in respect of the movie. Therefore, the producer of the movie and owner of the copyright initiated an invalidation in front of CNIPA on July 12th, 2017.

On June 22, 2018, after the TRAB invalidated the trademark, Xingning Shixin Lamp Factory refused to accept the decision and filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.

The decision stated that all the evidences in the case prove that the film “Green Lantern” was released in Chinese mainland a year before the trademark application date and the box office revenue was relatively high, remarking the reputation and popularity of the movie during that year.

Details from the movie flyer

The disputed trademark “Green Lantern” is the same as the name of the movie (title) and the character name. The products such as “lightbulbs, electric lights, lamps” and other commodities registered in the disputed trademark and the main prop in the film of “Green Lantern” belong to the same or similar category of commodities.  

Indeed, the decision declared that the registration and use of this trademark may easily mislead the public thinking that the owner of the trademark can have any connection with the movie company.

Eventually, after declaring the violation of Article 31 of the Trademark Law of 2001, the Court has determined that the plaintiff is free-riding on the fame of the Green Lantern movie, due the similarity between the trademark in dispute and the movie title and the fact that the plaintiff also applied for registration for the trademark in English for “Green Lantern” corresponding to the Chinese trademark “Green Lantern”.