Case Background

Inter IKEA Systems B.V. is the registered trademark owner of globally‑renowned home‑furnishing brands “宜家” and “IKEA”. Entering the Chinese market in 1998, the “IKEA” brand has built extremely high popularity and reputation in furniture and home‑goods sectors through continuous operation and large‑scale promotion. Its trademarks are registered under Class 20 for wooden furniture and home articles, and have been recognized as well‑known trademarks in multiple prior judgments.

The defendant, Foshan Kangpai Intelligent Doors & Windows Technology Co., Ltd., applied for registration of “康派宜家 KONPAe+ graphic” and “康派宜家” trademarks on Class 6 goods “metal doors, metal windows” in January 2017. It extensively used these marks on its official website, WeChat official accounts, physical stores and in business operations, together with advertising slogans such as “Exquisite craftsmanship・Quiet・More IKEA‑style” and “KANGPAI IKEA”.

Two other defendants, a Nanhai‑district Foshan company and a Haikou sales department, also used the identical marks in their business activities.

In April 2023, Inter IKEA filed a lawsuit at the Hainan Free‑Trade Port Intellectual Property Court against six parties including Kangpai Company and its legal representative, the Nanhai company and its legal representative. The claimant requested the court to affirm “宜家” as a well‑known trademark, order defendants to cease infringement, eliminate adverse impacts, and pay RMB 3 million for economic losses plus reasonable expenses (the claim of RMB 10 000 against the Haikou sales department was later withdrawn).

Inter IKEA contended that the accused marks were used on metal doors and windows, goods similar to furniture covered by its trademarks, likely to cause public confusion and therefore constituted trademark infringement.

Trial Focus and Disputes

This case features intertwined procedural hurdles and substantive findings. The accused “康派宜家” was a valid registered trademark under Class 6 (metal doors and windows), while IKEA’s trademarks belong to Class 20 (wooden furniture) according to the Classification of Similar Goods and Services. Under conventional practice, the right‑holder shall first file for invalidation before CNIPA and wait for the conclusion of administrative proceedings prior to instituting civil litigation.

In fact, Inter IKEA had filed an invalidation application in June 2022. CNIPA issued rulings in August‑September 2023, holding “康派宜家” similar to “IKEA / 宜家” and invalidating the two trademarks. Formal invalidation announcement took effect in December 2024.

Nevertheless, Kangpai Company appealed to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, and the administrative case remained pending. This meant conventional remedy would take years while the infringing status continued.

Faced with this deadlock, the court summarized the core dispute: whether the conducts of Kangpai Company, the Nanhai company and the Qiongshan sales department infringed Inter IKEA’s exclusive rights in “宜家” and “IKEA”.

The court pointed out that since the accused marks were still formally registered, whether “宜家” constituted a well‑known trademark became the prerequisite for finding infringement. Right‑holders may seek judicial protection directly in civil proceedings without waiting for the outcome of administrative invalidation procedures.

Well‑Known‑Mark Finding and Infringement Assessment

1. Whether “宜家” qualifies as a well‑known trademark

Considering its 1998 market entry, continuous use, market reputation, sales scale and heavy advertising investment, the court held “宜家” to be a well‑known trademark.

Following the three‑principle rules for well‑known‑mark adjudication: protection upon request, case‑by‑case recognition, recognition as‑needed, the court made the well‑known‑mark finding in response to IKEA’s application and concrete case necessities.

2. Whether goods are similar

Although Class 20 mainly covers wooden articles and Class 6 covers metal goods, the court held that with evolving construction and interior‑decoration patterns, wooden furniture partitions / furniture doors and metal doors, metal windows, metal door‑panels share strong relevance in function, purpose, manufacturing sectors, sales channels and consumer groups. They are apt to confuse relevant public as to source and shall be deemed similar goods.

3. Whether marks are similar

The court specially noted that Kangpai Company used “KANGPAI IKEA” in stores, official website, WeChat accounts and business activities. “IKEA” therein is identical to Inter IKEA’s registered “IKEA” trademark, establishing similarity.

The Chinese phonetic transcription for “康派宜家” should not be “KANGPAI IKEA”. Such usage manifests obvious free‑riding intent. The defendant argued “宜家” merely means “suitable for household use” and it highlighted “康派” instead of “宜家”. The court found in actual deployment “KANGPAI” and “IKEA” were displayed in equal font‑size and color, and rejected this defence.

Defendants’ use of “康派宜家” and slogans such as “Exquisite craftsmanship・Quiet・More IKEA‑style” is apt to confuse the public or make them associate the products with Inter IKEA, creating false impression of authorization or corporate affiliation. This amounts to dilution of the well‑known mark’s distinctiveness.

Under the well‑known‑mark anti‑dilution doctrine, reproduction, imitation or translation covers not only confusion‑inducing scenarios, but also conducts capable of triggering public association and eroding the distinctiveness of a well‑known trademark.

Accordingly the court found infringement established, ordering defendants to cease infringement, eliminate adverse influence and pay RMB 2 million compensation.

Defendants appealed to the Hainan Higher People’s Court. In second‑instance judgment (2024) Qiong Min Zhong No. 414, the original ruling was affirmed.

Typical Significance

This case sets benchmark precedents in three dimensions. First, it breaks procedural deadlock caused by conflicting registered trademarks. Through judicial well‑known‑mark recognition, civil disputes between two registered trademarks can be resolved directly, without awaiting administrative invalidation results, so as to stop ongoing infringement in a timely manner.

Second, it defines application boundaries for anti‑dilution protection. Well‑known‑mark protection is not limited to confusion prevention; weakening of distinctiveness triggered by public association may also constitute infringement, even without source‑misidentification.

Third, the court refuses mechanical reliance on the Classification of Similar Goods and Services. Similar‑goods assessment is conducted from substance: function, purpose, sales channel and consumer group. It provides flexible adjudication standards for cross‑class protection of well‑known trademarks.