Kung Fu Panda gets merchandising right

Recently, Dream Works Animation SKG filed a dissent application against a “KUNGFUPANDA” trademark application applied on car seat covers filed by a Shandong nature person Hu Xiaozhong. After the trademark above approved by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) under the State Administration of Industry and Commerce of China, Dream Works filed a administrative law suit to Beijing NO.1 Intermediate People’s Court. Recently, Beijing Higher People’s Court made the final judgment of the case, overruling the verdict made by TRAB and the judgment made by Beijing NO.1 Intermediate People’s Court, and required a new verdict from TRAB. 

Accordingly, Hu Xiaozhong filed the application of No. 6806482 “KUNGFUPANDA” trademark in December 2008, applied from Class 12 merchandise of car seat covers. In the statutory period, Dream Works filed a dissent application against the trademark application above to the Trademark Office under the State Administration of Industry and Commerce of China and was then rejected. Dream Works then filed a reexamine application to TRAB. 

Dream Works claimed that, the trademark was similar to its citing trademark on same or similar merchandise, and violated its merchandising right. 

The Citing No. 5400891 “KUNGFUPANDA” trademark, ratified use of Class 9 merchandise of computer peripheral equipments, and No. 5400892 “KUNGFUPANDA”, ratified use of Class 28 merchandise of toys, are registrated by Dream Works from June 2006.
After that, Dream Works appealed to Beijing Higher People’s Court. Dream Works claimed that, its famous film “KUNG FU PANDA” had already had a popularity in China before the “KUNGFUPANDA” trademark application filed, thus it should have the merchandising right of the film, which would be violated by the “KUNGFUPANDA” trademark application. 

The Court held that, the film “KUNG FU PANDA” and the characters in the film had already had popularity in China before the “KUNGFUPANDA” trademark application filed, and were created by Dream Works. So the Court held that the merchandising right of “KUNGFUPANDA” should be protected.