The appellant, dissatisfied with the judgment of the first trial, lodged an appeal to the Beijing Higher People’s Court.
The Beijing Higher People’s Court has held that it is not necessary for a mark to meet the specified standard that it must possess a high degree of distinction. As long as it can be recognized by the relevant public as a reference to the source of goods or services, it can be used as a trademark.
Therefore, from the case we can conclude: 1. The basic function of the trademark is to identify the source of goods. As long as there is an indication in recognition of goods/services, it is not necessary to require the significant distinctiveness for a trademark. 2. The distinctive features of the mark are derived from their own distinctiveness or the distinctiveness through actual use. The use of the trademark in dispute enhanced its distinctiveness, and it would not mislead the consumer’s confusion regarding the source of services, or cause a reduction of its distinctiveness because of a certain reason.