A three-year tug-of-war over a strikingly similar name has finally reached its conclusion between two Guangdong food companies—“Hsu Fu Chi” and “Wong Fu Chi.” The Beijing Higher People’s Court has issued a final ruling, rejecting the appeal filed by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), setting aside TRAB’s earlier decision to uphold Registration No. 8138766 for the mark “Wong Fu Chi,” and ordering the Board to issue a new ruling.
Name similarity sparks an interest collision
The “Hsu Fu Chi” brand originated in the 1970s and is well-known for confectionery, pastries, jelly puddings and other snack foods. Its operating entity, Hsu Fu Chi International Holdings Group Limited, was incorporated in Hong Kong in 2008. The other party, Rongfeng Food Co., Ltd. of Jieyang, Guangdong Province, established in 1992, likewise produces candy, biscuits and jellies. In March 2010, a Mr. Huang applied to register the mark “Wong Fu Chi” (the disputed mark), which was approved in 2012 for Class 30 goods such as biscuits, candy, jelly and tea.
Review stage and first-instance reversal
In July 2015, Hsu Fu Chi filed an invalidation request with TRAB, arguing that the disputed mark was confusingly similar to its cited marks for identical or similar goods and infringed its prior trade-name rights and well-known mark benefits. In May 2016 TRAB upheld the registration, reasoning that although both marks contain “Fu Chi,” the different first characters (“Wong” vs. “Hsu”) created sufficient overall distinction; the disputed mark was not highly similar to the “Hsu Fu Chi” trade name; and even if the latter were well known, the dissimilarities meant its interests were unlikely to be harmed.
Hsu Fu Chi brought an administrative suit before the Beijing IP Court. The similarity of the marks became the decisive issue.
First-instance judgment
In October 2017 the court set aside TRAB’s ruling, holding:
-
The disputed mark “Wong Fu Chi” and the cited marks “Hsu Fu Chi” are similar marks used on identical or similar goods.
-
The registration damages Hsu Fu Chi’s prior trade-name rights: given the fame of “Hsu Fu Chi” in confectionery, consumers are likely to assume a connection.
-
Because similarity had already been found, there was no need to decide whether the cited mark should enjoy well-known-mark cross-class protection.
TRAB appealed to the Beijing Higher People’s Court; Hsu Fu Chi and Mr. Huang accepted the first-instance outcome.
Final judgment: likelihood of confusion established
The second-instance court focused on whether the two marks were similar for identical or similar goods. It found:
-
Goods are similar: the designated goods overlap in function, use, distribution channels and consumer groups.
-
Marks are similar: both adopt the structure “X-Fu Chi” with “Fu Chi” as the dominant element. Only the first characters (“Wong” vs. “Hsu”) differ, but the overall structure and pronunciation are close. Consumers exercising ordinary care would find them hard to distinguish.
-
Reputation: evidence showed that, before the March 2010 application date, the “Hsu Fu Chi & Device” mark had already gained significant market reputation in candy and pastries. Co-existence of “Wong Fu Chi” and “Hsu Fu Chi” on identical or similar goods is highly likely to cause source confusion or the belief that the goods come from the same undertaking or economically linked undertakings.
Accordingly, the Beijing Higher People’s Court dismissed TRAB’s appeal, affirmed the first-instance judgment, annulled TRAB’s decision to maintain the disputed mark, and ordered the Board to issue a new ruling.
