A trademark dispute revolving around the three letters "BKT" has been escalating across the luggage and lumbar support cushion industries.

Baoding Jiangzhe International Trade Co., Ltd., a luggage enterprise based in Hebei, and Guangzhou Liquan Brand Management Service Co., Ltd., operator of the "BKT lumbar support posture chair" brand, hold conflicting positions. One party accuses the other of malicious suppression, while the other maintains that its rights enforcement is legitimate. At present, the trademark infringement and unfair competition lawsuit filed by Liquan Company has been heard in court, but no judgment has yet been rendered. Baoding Jiangzhe has also filed a counterclaim against Liquan for its production of draw-bar luggage.

Misaligned Timelines

The core conflict of this dispute stems from a time gap between a registered trademark and a later-established brand.

Trademark No. 20517681 "BKT" held by Baoding Jiangzhe is registered in Class 18, covering bags, schoolbags, backpacks, suitcases, handbags and other goods. It was approved for registration in August 2017. The trademark was transferred to Baoding Jiangzhe upon approval in July 2025. According to the company’s representative, the family has run the luggage business since 2012. The trademark has been in operation for nearly a decade, with annual sales reaching tens of millions of yuan.

The BKT brand of Liquan Company mainly focuses on lumbar support cushions and posture chairs. Public business registration information shows that Guangzhou Huachuan Yuting Biotechnology Co., Ltd., the original entity behind the brand, was founded in March 2021. Media reports indicate that monthly sales of BKT lumbar support cushions once exceeded 100 million yuan on Douyin. According to Frost & Sullivan research, its lumbar support posture chairs ranked first in global sales for two consecutive years from 2024 to 2025.

In terms of trademark registration date, Baoding Jiangzhe clearly has an earlier filing date. Nevertheless, Liquan Company’s claims are not based on the registration sequence, but on allegations of unfair competition and malicious free-riding on its brand reputation.

Acquisition Offer and Rejection

According to the representative of Baoding Jiangzhe, in mid-2025, an intermediary contacted her, stating that Liquan intended to acquire the Class 18 "BKT" luggage trademark. The quoted price was gradually raised from 500,000 yuan, with an oral offer once reaching 3 million yuan, which was explicitly rejected.

Chain of Reactions Following the Rejection

After the acquisition attempt was rejected, Liquan launched legal rights protection actions:

Non-use Cancellation and Invalidation Application

Starting from December 2025, parties associated with Liquan successively filed non-use cancellation applications (seeking revocation on the grounds of non-use for three consecutive years) and trademark invalidation applications against the trademark. On May 28, 2026, the China National Intellectual Property Administration ruled to dismiss the cancellation application. It confirmed that the evidence submitted by Baoding Jiangzhe, including Taobao and Tmall order records, Douyin store screenshots, sales agency contracts and trademark authorization statements, was authentic and valid, proving genuine use of the trademark on the approved goods.

Lawyer’s Letters Sent to Live-streaming Promoters

In March 2026, a law firm entrusted by Liquan sent batches of lawyer’s letters to dozens of live-streaming promoters cooperating with Baoding Jiangzhe. The letters alleged that the promoters’ promotion of "BKT children’s spine-protective schoolbags" constituted infringement, demanding an immediate halt to promotion, with a claim of 500,000 yuan per case for failure to comply.

Litigation and Counterclaim

On July 9, 2026, Liquan sued Baoding Jiangzhe for trademark infringement and unfair competition, claiming damages of 2 million yuan and applying to the court for property preservation. The court ordered the sealing, seizure and freezing of property under the respondent’s name with a total value of 2 million yuan.

The case was heard on September 14, 2026, and no judgment has been issued so far.

Meanwhile, Baoding Jiangzhe stated that it has filed a counterclaim against Liquan for the production of draw-bar luggage, on the grounds that its Class 18 trademark covers suitcases.

Core Disputes and Unresolved Questions

The outcome of this dispute hinges on the findings of several key factual issues.

First, product classes and likelihood of confusion. Baoding Jiangzhe’s trademark is registered in Class 18 for luggage, while Liquan’s business centers on lumbar support cushions and posture chairs. The two categories fall under different classes in the Classification of Similar Goods and Services. For Liquan to prevail in the infringement lawsuit, it needs to prove that the BKT lumbar support chair qualifies as a well-known trademark entitled to cross-class protection, or demonstrate that the other party’s use is likely to cause confusion among relevant consumers. Baoding Jiangzhe argues that Liquan’s trademark is not well-known, the products do not belong to similar classes, and it has prior registration and operation in the luggage sector, so there is no free-riding conduct.

Second, whether the actually used mark exceeds the scope of registration. Liquan alleges that Baoding Jiangzhe uses the upright "BKT" font instead of the italic version shown in its trademark registration certificate, and also imitates Liquan’s packaging decoration and marketing materials. If the court accepts this allegation, it may constitute irregular use of the registered trademark and even unfair competition.

A trademark registered in 2017 and a brand founded in 2021 — two business trajectories that could have developed separately, collided head-on over the three letters "BKT".

From a legal perspective, the decisive factor of this case lies in the core element of likelihood of confusion. Trademark law protects not merely the sign itself, but the source-identifying function carried by the mark. If Liquan cannot prove that relevant consumers will mistakenly associate BKT luggage with its BKT lumbar support chair products, its claim for cross-class protection lacks a solid foundation. Conversely, if it can prove that actual confusion has occurred or is highly probable, the situation may shift.

Whether confusion exists is ultimately not a logical deduction in court, but a factual perception formed in the market. Consumer market research may become a critical breakthrough point in this case. Through well-designed questionnaires and sampling surveys, researchers can measure the public’s association with the "BKT" mark, their awareness of the connection between the two brands, and whether misidentification occurs in actual purchasing scenarios. This can transform the abstract claim of "likelihood of confusion" into quantifiable, cross-examinable evidence. In similar trademark disputes, market research reports have repeatedly served as key evidence for courts to determine confusion.

The party who can deliver verifiable empirical evidence in this link may gain the upper hand in this deadlock where both sides hold their own arguments.