On April 27, 2026, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) released ten typical cases on trademark opposition and review for the year 2025. Among them, Opposition Case No. 77565415 for the mark “HOPPI JUJU WIPES & Device” drew wide attention for copyright‑protection issues concerning the domestic animation IP “Nailong”.

Case Outcome: Infringing Trademark Rejected for Registration

The opposer, a Shenzhen‑based culture‑media company, discovered that Quanzhou trading company filed application No. 77565415 for the mark “HOPPI JUJU WIPES & Device”, designated for Class 16 goods including pens, stationery and paper tissues. The opposer contended that the opposed mark was similar to its registered “Nailong & Device” trademarks and, more importantly, infringed the prior copyright of the “Nailong” fine‑art work.

The opposed party failed to submit a response within the statutory time‑limit. The Trademark Office held that the opposed mark constituted a similar trademark for similar goods compared with the opposer’s cited marks. More critically, copyright‑registration certificates submitted by the opposer proved its legal‑representative as the copyright owner of the “Nailong” artwork, and the opposer, as an interested party, was entitled to assert prior copyright. The opposed mark was substantially similar to “Nailong” artwork in design style, expression and visual effect, and the opposed party had reasonable possibility of accessing the work. Pursuant to Article 30 and Article 32 of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Trademark Office ruled that the opposed trademark shall not be registered.

Legal Dispute: May Trademark Registration “Free‑ride” on Others’ Works?

The core issue is whether the applied‑for trademark infringes the prior copyright in the “Nailong” artwork, violating Article 32 of the Trademark Law, which prohibits registration that harms another party’s existing prior rights.

Article 19 of the Supreme People’s Court Judicial Interpretation on Administrative Cases of Trademark Authorization and Confirmation clarifies that where a party claims prior copyright, courts shall review work originality, ownership and trademark‑infringement allegations under the Copyright Law. A copyright‑registration certificate may serve as prima‑facie evidence of copyright ownership where the trademark sign qualifies as a work.

Four‑dimensional Test for Copyright Infringement

Cases involving asserted prior copyright generally examine four factors:

1. Whether the subject matter qualifies as a work. “Nailong” is an animated one‑year‑old alien dinosaur with a chubby figure and lively appearance. It reflects the creator’s intellectual labour and original conception and satisfies the constituent requirements for a fine‑art work.
2. Determination of right‑holder. Evidence including copyright‑registration certificates shows the “Nailong” artwork has gone through creation, public release and registration procedures. The opposed trademark filing date was March 26, 2024. As early as February 6, 2020, the opposer filed relevant trademark applications for similar goods and obtained a design patent certificate in March 2022, building solid title foundation.
3. Substantial similarity. The graphic element of the opposed trademark closely resembles “Nailong” in line drawing, outline and artistic style: features such as round‑fat head, short limbs and white‑circular belly are consistent, highly likely to confuse relevant audiences.
4. Possibility of access. Widely disseminated on Douyin, Tencent Video and other platforms, “Nailong” enjoys high public visibility. The opposed party had ample opportunity to encounter the work.

Case Significance

This is a typical case against malicious squatting targeting domestic animation IP. With the booming domestic animation industry, high‑value IP symbols have become core industrial resources and frequent targets of trademark‑squatting. This case sends a clear signal: if an artwork possesses originality and has been published prior to the trademark filing date, the right‑holder may invoke prior copyright for cross‑category protection even without full‑class trademark registrations. It supplies creative‑industry entities with a defensive tool beyond trademark‑class limits.

Proactive layout beats post‑hoc rights enforcement. Creators are reminded that animation‑IP protection cannot rely solely on trademark registration. Timely copyright registration after creation, preservation of creation evidence and comprehensive IP layout are more reliable than subsequent litigation. Market participants shall conduct necessary prior‑right clearance before filing trademark applications, to prevent “creative reference” from turning into infringement risk.