Lost in Translation: The ENVACAR Case
February 28, 2005 | BY
clpstaff &clp articlesBy Zha [email protected] trademark can lose its distinctiveness with the passage of time, but can its distinctiveness be lost in translation? …
By Zha Zheng
[email protected]
A trademark can lose its distinctiveness with the passage of time, but can its distinctiveness be lost in translation? A recent trademark case in China raised this issue, in addition to a number of other challenges.
The Facts
In September 2001 the pharmaceuticals giant, Pfizer Corporation (Pfizer), made an application to the State Administration for Industry and Commerce Trademark Office (TMO) for the registration of the trademark ENVACAR in China, which was rejected. Dissatisfied with TMO51s decision, Pfizer appealed to the State Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (STRAB). When STRAB chose to uphold the decision of the TMO, Pfizer initiated a lawsuit against STRAB in Beijing No. 1 People51s Court. On December 20 2004, the court ruled in favour of STRAB on the grounds that the term ENVACAR cannot be registered as a trademark, because it is a generic term for a type of anti-hypertension drug.
This premium content is reserved for
China Law & Practice Subscribers.
A Premium Subscription Provides:
- A database of over 3,000 essential documents including key PRC legislation translated into English
- A choice of newsletters to alert you to changes affecting your business including sector specific updates
- Premium access to the mobile optimized site for timely analysis that guides you through China's ever-changing business environment
Already a subscriber? Log In Now