The Supreme People’s Court (SPC) recently released a batch of typical anti-unfair-competition cases. Among them, a retrial concerning the ownership of the “BULL” trade name has drawn wide attention from the legal and business communities for the way it draws a bright line against “free-riding on famous brands.”
In the retrial judgment, the SPC made clear:
Even if an enterprise has not yet commenced actual operations, registering another party’s already influential trade name as its own corporate name—provided (1) the business scope is similar and (2) there is evidence of an intention to engage in business—falls squarely within the scope of China’s Anti-Unfair-Competition Law.
On that basis, the Court vacated the second-instance judgment, reinstated the first-instance ruling, ordered “Bull King Company” to cease using any corporate name containing the word “BULL,” and awarded Bull Group RMB 100 000 in damages and reasonable expenses.
Case history: unauthorised use of the “BULL” mark triggers dispute
Bull Group was founded in 2008 and manufactures electrical accessories, distribution switches and related products. Its “BULL” series trademarks have been recognised as well-known marks, and its trade name has repeatedly been rated a “Famous Enterprise Name” in Zhejiang Province.
“Bull King Company” was incorporated in 2020. Its business scope overlaps with Bull Group’s, covering household appliances and hardware, and it filed annual enterprise returns for 2020-2022 in accordance with the law.
Bull Group argued that inserting the word “BULL” into the corporate name amounted to piggy-backing on its goodwill and constituted unfair competition. It sued in Zaozhuang Intermediate People’s Court, demanding that the defendant stop using the name and pay damages.
The defendant countered:
(1) its registered name is “Bull King,” not “BULL”;
(2) it has never conducted actual business since incorporation;
(3) therefore there is no commercial “use” and no infringement.
First instance (Zaozhuang IPC):
The court held that the choice of “Bull King” as a trade name was made in bad faith, the business scope was similar, and confusion among the relevant public was likely. Unfair competition was established; the defendant was ordered to stop using the name and to pay RMB 100 000.
Second instance (Shandong High People’s Court):
The court ruled that mere registration without actual commercial use is not the “use” targeted by the Anti-Unfair-Competition Law. It set aside the first-instance judgment and dismissed Bull Group’s claim.
Bull Group applied to the SPC for retrial.
SPC retrial: the act of registration itself possesses the attribute of “use”
The retrial clarified a key point:
“Use” of a corporate name is not limited to publicly displaying the name in commerce; it also encompasses the act of registering the name for business purposes.
The Court noted:
-
Corporate registration is a prerequisite to doing business;
-
Bull King Company’s filing of annual returns and its shareholders’ applications for related trademarks demonstrate a clear intention to engage in business;
-
Consequently, even without actual operations, the registration of a name containing “BULL” is sufficient to cause confusion among the relevant public and constitutes unfair competition.
Impact of the judgment: nipping “imitation registrations” in the bud
The retrial is significant for IP protection. It stops “brand-hitchhiking” at the source and prevents the escalation of potential infringement, serving as a model for safeguarding market integrity and fair competition.
The case clarifies the standard for determining confusion: actual confusion is not required; likelihood of confusion is sufficient. Once registration is coupled with an intention to do business, the act falls within the reach of the law.
