Can registering the place name "Xiasha" as a trademark bar other merchants from selling Xiasha shaomai? The Pudong District People’s Court delivered a clear judgment: no single individual or enterprise may monopolize this regional traditional snack.
I. Dispute Over Exclusive Right to a Centuries-Old Snack
Xiasha shaomai is a time-honored local delicacy in Pudong dating back to the Ming Dynasty, named for its way of being freshly cooked and sold on-site. Passed down for hundreds of years, its craft has been listed as Intangible Cultural Heritage at both Shanghai municipal and Pudong district levels.
As the snack grew famous, numerous eateries began selling Xiasha shaomai. The plaintiff, a recognized inheritor of the heritage craft and owner of word & graphic trademarks covering "Xiasha", together with its authorized operator, claimed exclusive rights to the mark. They filed a lawsuit against two local restaurants, alleging use of phrases such as "Xiasha Old Street Soup-filled Shaomai" and "Xiasha Shaomai" on store signs and packaging constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition, claiming over 4.7 million yuan in compensation.
The defendants argued that "Xiasha" is merely a place name, and Xiasha shaomai is a centuries-old local snack that cannot be monopolized by one brand.
II. Three-Dimensional Judicial Analysis Ruling Out Infringement
Instead of a simplistic judgment, the court analyzed the case from three dimensions:
-
Purpose of use: Descriptive geographic indication rather than free-riding
The defendants printed "Xiasha Old Street Soup-filled Shaomai" on signs and packaging only to indicate the product’s origin, acting as bona fide descriptive use instead of identifying their own brand.
-
Manner of use: No prominent highlighting of the disputed word
The defendants only used "Xiasha" as necessary geographic description without emphasizing it. They prominently displayed their own authorized trademark "Hehuating" and clear origin information on packages and price lists, with no intention to ride on the plaintiff’s brand goodwill.
-
Consequence of use: No likelihood of consumer confusion
Consumers purchase the snack for its regional characteristic rather than the plaintiff’s brand. With the defendants’ independent trademark clearly marked, ordinary buyers would not mistakenly associate their products with the plaintiff’s business.
The court ruled no trademark infringement existed. The packaging, signage colors, graphics and text of the two parties are distinctly different and unlikely to confuse the public. All claims of the plaintiff were dismissed. The plaintiff later withdrew its appeal, and the first-instance judgment has taken legal effect.
III. Judge’s Interpretation: Trademarks Cannot Serve as a Tool to Monopolize Public Resources
Wang Xiao, judge of the IP Tribunal of Pudong District People’s Court, stated that intangible cultural heritage carries collective historical memories and cultural genes, qualifying as public cultural resources.
The judgment balances trademark protection and public interests: it safeguards legitimate trademark rights while clarifying that trademark rights have clear boundaries. For heritage names with established regional public recognition, exclusive monopolization by a single entity shall be prohibited.
IV. Core Case Takeaways
-
Geographic trademarks feature weak distinctiveness with limited protection scope
Merchants may lawfully use geographic place names to describe product origins without malicious free-riding or consumer confusion. Trademark registration of a place name does not grant the right to ban local producers from referencing the location.
-
Intangible cultural heritage belongs to the public and cannot be monopolized
The craft of Xiasha shaomai is dual-level intangible cultural heritage. Its core value lies in inheritance and popularization, not exclusive private possession. Being a heritage inheritor does not entitle one to full exclusive rights over the heritage name.
-
Trademark enforcement must stay within legal boundaries
Though trademark rights are private rights, their exercise shall not harm public interests. Courts will reject attempts to monopolize public cultural resources via trademark registration.
Conclusion
The plaintiff’s 4.7-million-yuan compensation claim was fully rejected with zero damages awarded. The case draws a clear legal line: trademarks enjoy legal protection, yet cannot be used to enclose public cultural resources.
Xiasha shaomai is a collective culinary treasure created by local residents over hundreds of years. The intangible cultural heritage belongs to the public, not a private exclusive business asset.
