Case Name

Fact

Holding/Legal Basis

ETS V. New Oriental Language School (China Intellectual Property, 2011)

Defendant used TOEFEL mark in its publications to refer its publications designed for the TOEFL tests

Ø Infringement

Ø Nominative use identical mark cause likelihood of confusion

Ø Article 57 (a) of China Trademark Law (2001)

VOLVO Trademark Holding Aktiebolag V. Longevity Filters Ltd. (China Intellectual

Property, 2011)

Defendant used the sign “FOR VOLVO” on the spare parts to refer spare parts fit for VOLVO car.

Ø Infringement

Ø Nominative use identical mark cause likelihood of confusion

Ø Article 57 (a) of the China Trademark Law (2001)

Ying Zhi Bao Automobile Sales & Service Co. v. Audi. (China Intellectual Property, 2013)

Defendant used the sign AUDI in repair store to refer providing repair services for AUDI car.

Ø Infringement

Ø Nominative use identical mark cause likelihood of confusion

Ø Article 57 (a) of the China Trademark Law (2001)

Nippon v. Taobao (China Intellectual

Property, 2013)

Defendant used Nippon mark on website for advertisement to refer selling Nippon’s product in their online store.

Ø No infringement

Ø Nominative use identical mark did not cause likelihood of confusion

Ø Article 57 (a) of the China Trademark Law (2001)