[Author: Sophia Xiao]

Since Article 8 of the Trademark Law of China (2001) stipulates that a three-dimensional sign can be filed for registration as a trademark, three-dimensional sign trademarks (also known as the “three-dimensional trademarks”) have been formally included in the scope of protection of the Trademark Law of China. For more than 20 years, the number of applications for 3D trademarks in China has increased year by year. Despite that the judicial precedents of protection for 3D trademarks are still rare, it does not affect applicants’ enthusiasm for application. The author intends to sort out the current situation of registration and protection of 3D trademarks in China, and analyze from multiple perspectives such as the definition and representation of 3D trademarks, the general situation of registration, the requirements for registration and protection, and judicial practice through real cases, in order to help more three-dimensional trademark owners who wish to seek protection by the Trademark Law of China.

1. Definition and Classification of Three-dimensional Trademarks

2. Definition of Three-dimensional Trademarks

There is no clear definition of three-dimensional trademark in the Trademark Law of China, and only Article 8 of the Trademark Law stipulates the registrability of three-dimensional sign trademarks. However, the Legislative Affairs Commission of the National People’s Congress made an explanatory definition of three-dimensional signs in the Interpretation of the Trademark Law (2013 Edition) that “a three-dimensional sign, is a sign that can distinguish the source of goods and services by the shape of the goods themselves, the packaging of the goods or other three-dimensional shapes”, such as the shape of the glass bottle of Coca-Cola. A trademark consisting of a three-dimensional sign is called a “three-dimensional trademark”.

In addition, Chapter 6 of the Guidelines for the Examination and Trial of Trademarks 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the “Guidelines”) issued by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (hereinafter referred to as the “CNIPA”) clearly defines a three-dimensional trademark as “a trademark consisting only of a three-dimensional sign or a three-dimensional sign containing other elements”.

2. Representation of a Three-dimensional Trademarks

With regards to the representation of three-dimensional trademarks, the Guidelines also provides a clear definition:

1. “The three-dimensional shape of the product itself”

This refers to the three-dimensional shape of the product itself or part of the product, including the unique design of the product’s own shape and appearance. For example, Volkswagen Beetle “”, Gillian’s chocolate “” and so on.

2. “The three-dimensional shape of the product packaging or container”

Exquisite packaging (including boxes, bottles or other containers, etc.), can usually easily attract the attention of consumers, and also become the main registration objects of enterprises’ three-dimensional trademarks. Although it is extremely difficult to obtain registration, registration precedents are not few. For example, Ferrero Rocher’s chocolate packaging “”, Head & Shoulders’ shampoo packaging bottle “” and so on.

3. “Other three-dimensional signs”

“Other three-dimensional signs” means three-dimensional signs that have a unique design and are not directly associated with the designated goods or services. Since there is no direct connection with the product, it is easier to be considered distinctive in trademark examination, which belongs to the category of three-dimensional trademarks with a relatively high registration rate. For example: Sanrio’s Hello Kitty “”, Mercis B.V.’s Miffy “”, the statue in front of the Bei Ping Lou restaurant “”, and so on.

4. “A combination of three-dimensional shapes and planar elements”

This category of composite trademarks is further divided into the following three forms of representation:

The author searched on the “TMKOO” database with “three-dimensional marks” as the keyword, and the search has revealed a total of 4,180 registered three-dimensional trademarks from 2015 to 2021. The details are summarized as follows.

1. Applications and Registrations of Three-dimensional Trademarks in 2015-2021 (Data Updated Date: April 12, 2022)

As shown in the table above, although China introduced the three-dimensional trademark protection system in 2001, it was not until 2016 that the number of applications began to increase, and the number of applications and registrations reached a peak in 2019, with the number of registrations as high as 1,782. This situation fully demonstrates the growing demand of enterprises to protect their three-dimensional trademarks.

2. Top 5 Registrants of Three-dimensional Trademarks (Data Updated Date: April 12, 2022)

According to incomplete statistics, the Emperor Qinshihuang’s Mausoleum Site Museum is the registrant with the most three-dimensional trademarks in China. Under its name, it has 995 registered three-dimensional trademarks, involving nearly 20 kinds of pottery figurines such as military officials, kneeling archers, and soldiers. In addition, China FAW Group Co., Ltd., Yunnan Huang Wei Media Co., Ltd., The Beijing Organizing Committee for the 2022 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, Changchun Metro Co., Ltd., etc., these registrants’ portfolio mostly covers all 45 classes, and the applications are mostly cartoon figures.

3. Top 15 Classes with Three-dimensional Trademark Registrations (Data Updated Date: April 12, 2022)

According to incomplete statistics, at present, the number of three-dimensional trademark registrations in China in Class 33 for “alcoholic beverages” is as high as 334, accounting for approximately 8% of the total registrations. Among them, most of the applications are filed by Chinese and foreign liquor companies for their various bottles and packaging. There are also many cartoon figures filed for registration. Classes 35, 41, 16, 9, 28, 25, 18, 42, 30, 14, 21, 3, 3, 43 and 32 are close behind, and are also the preferred classes for application and registration by three-dimensional trademark applicants.

3. Formality Requirements for Trademark Application for Three-dimensional Trademark

In China, what are the formality requirements that an enterprise needs to meet if it wants to file a three-dimensional trademark application? In the Guidelines, the formality requirements for a three-dimensional trademark application are set out in detail. Enterprises can refer to these requirements to prepare application materials for three-dimensional trademarks.

1. Declaration of Trademark Application

The applicant shall make a declaration in the “Declaration of the Trademark Application” in the trademark application form. If it is not declared, it will be deemed not to be applied for trademark registration as a “three-dimensional mark”.

Translation:

2. Relevant Provisions for Drawings of the Three-dimensional Shape

The applicant should submit drawings capable of determining the three-dimensional shape, including at least a three-sided view, and the multi-faceted view should belong to the same three-dimensional mark. The overall length and width of the drawing should not be larger than 10 cm and not less than 5 cm. The text element included in the three-dimensional mark shall not be independent of the view.

3. Relevant Provisions on the Description and Use of Trademarks

The applicant shall state in the trademark description how the three-dimensional mark is used with respect to goods or services. The applicant may provide a text description regarding the drawings of the three-dimensional mark in the trademark description part, or may disclaim certain part of the trademark that does not claim exclusive rights.

Trademark Description: The trademark is a three-dimensional mark of mascot of milk tea with milk cap. Colors Claimed: white, black, brown, nude and dark red. Way of Use: The mark is used for advertising, exhibition, promotion and other business activities regarding the designated goods.

4. Requirements for Registration and Protection of Three-dimensional Trademarks

5. Distinctiveness of Three-dimensional Trademarks

Article 9 of the Trademark Law stipulates that a trademark filed for registration shall possess distinctive features, be easy to identify, and shall not conflict with the legal rights acquired earlier by others. Therefore, the premise of three-dimensional trademark registration is distinctiveness. In determining whether a three-dimensional mark is distinctive, the official authority generally examines the inherent distinctiveness (whether the logo itself is able to distinguish the source of goods or services) and acquired distinctiveness (the distinctiveness acquired through extensive use). The following cases may provide examples regarding the examination of the distinctiveness of three-dimensional trademarks in the administrative and judicial stages.

1. Ganten Mineral Water Bottle Case1

The three-dimensional shape of the bottle in the applied-for-trademark “” is the three-dimensional shape of the packaging that the applicant has been using for a long time and in large quantities on goods “mineral water”, and has obtained a certain reputation in market. The overall shape of the bottle is unique and has a high level of originality. The applicant’s trademark “景田百岁山 (Ganten Bai Sui Mountain in Chinese) & Device” has been used extensively in actual production and operation, and the “景田 (Ganten in Chinese)” trademark has been recognized as a famous trademark with respect to the goods “mineral water; distilled water”. In view that the product has achieved a high degree of popularity, and the packaging of the product is an inseparable part, the relevant public can identify the three-dimensional mark as a mark to distinguish the source of the goods when seeing the mark. The mark has established a sole connection with the applicant. As such, the applied-for-mark has the distinctive characteristics of a trademark with respect to the goods “mineral water”.

2. Vans Shoes Case2

The applied-for-mark “” is a view of a sneaker with a checkered pattern in various perspectives. Its overall appearance is a common shoe appearance. The three-dimensional mark used with respect to the goods “shoes (footwear)” is a three-dimensional shape of commonly used goods, and consumers are not likely to identify it as a trademark. As it is difficult for the mark to distinguish the source of the goods, it is a sign that lacks distinctive features. The evidence submitted by the applicant is insufficient to prove that the applied-for-mark has acquired distinctive features and is able to indicate the source of goods after use.

3. Kinder Joy Chocolate Case3

The applied-for-mark “” is a combined three-dimensional mark composed of a three-dimensional eggshell shape, three colors of red, blue and white, and text in a foreign language “Kinder”. Among the composing elements, the eggshell-shaped three-dimensional mark with claimed colors has a distinctive feature when used with respect to the goods “chocolate”, and the foreign language text “Kinder” also has a distinctive feature with respect to the above goods. The evidence submitted by the applicant can prove that the three-dimensional mark has a certain reputation on the goods “chocolate” and has established a sole connection with the applicant. Therefore, the applied-for-mark is distinctive on the goods “chocolate” and its distinctiveness is further enhanced through actual use, which can play a role in distinguishing the source of the goods.

4. China Energy Drilling Platform Case4

The applied-for-mark “” is designated on services including “drilling of deep oil or gas wells; construction”, which is not easy to be identified as a trademark, and thus cannot play a role in distinguishing the source of services, and lacks the distinctiveness that a trademark should possess.

5. Martell Noblige Cognac Bottle5

The disputed trademark “” is a cognac bottle container with a teardrop-shaped facet design, and the appearance of the bottle actually used is marked with “MARTELL”, which further impels the relevant public to recognize the three-dimensional mark as a container for liquor goods, and “MARTELL” is the trademark labelled on the goods. The relevant public will not identify the container as a trademark due to the reason that its design is relatively “novel”, but will still recognize the shape of the bottle as a container for liquor goods. Therefore, the disputed trademark is not inherently distinctive. In the meanwhile, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff was not sufficient to prove that the disputed trademark has produced recognition as a trademark that was superior to the meaning of the container of liquor goods. Therefore, the disputed trademark did not acquire distinctiveness, either.

6. Shanghai M&G Pen Case6

The disputed trademark “” as an entirety is a visual view of a pen in appearance. When being used on the designated goods “pens [office requisites]; fountain pens”, the mark only represents the general graphics of the goods. According to the cognitive habits of the relevant public, it is likely to be recognized as a general shape of the pen goods, rather than a trademark that identifies the source of the goods. As such, the disputed trademark as an entirety cannot play a role in distinguishing the source of goods, and lacks the inherent distinctiveness of a trademark.

7. Coconut Palm Group’s Juice Packaging Box Case7

The disputed trademark “” as an entirety appears to be the commonly used packaging box shape of its designated goods. Although the box body includes graphics and the Chinese characters “椰树 (coconut tree in Chinese)”, as its designated goods is “juice”, according to the cognitive habits of the relevant public, it is easy to be recognized as an entirety as the packaging of goods such as “juice”, rather than a trademark that identifies the source of the goods, which cannot play a role in distinguishing the source of the goods, and lacks the inherent distinctiveness of a trademark. Moreover, the evidence in the case is insufficient to prove that the disputed trademark has a high degree of popularity after use and has obtained the distinctiveness of a registrable trademark.

8. P&G’s Laundry Gel Ball Case8

The disputed trademark “” appears to be the commonly used packaging shape of its designated goods. According to the cognitive habits of the relevant public, it is easy to be recognized as an entirety as the packaging of goods such as detergent and cleaning preparations, rather than a trademark that identifies the source of goods. As such, it cannot play a role in distinguishing the source of the goods, and lacks the inherent distinctiveness of a trademark. In addition, the evidence submitted by Procter & Gamble was insufficient to prove that the disputed trademark had gained a high degree of popularity after use and has obtained the distinctiveness of a registrable trademark.

Based on the above eight (8) cases, whether it is the administrative examination of trademarks or the judicial trial of the court, China has adopted a more rigorous and conservative attitude towards the examination of the distinctiveness of three-dimensional trademarks, and the judicial stage is more stringent than the administrative stage. The overall situation can be roughly summarized as follows.

A. The shape or packaging of a product itself being “novel” or “unique” in its own design will not be necessarily considered to be inherently distinctive.

B. Compared with the three-dimensional trademark composed of the three-dimensional shape of the goods packaging, the three-dimensional trademark composed of the three-dimensional shape of the goods itself will be more difficult to be considered inherently distinctive.

C. “Acquired distinctiveness” dominates the determination of the distinctiveness of three-dimensional trademarks.

On the whole, whether it is a three-dimensional trademark composed of the three-dimensional shape of the product itself or the three-dimensional shape of the packaging of goods, the official authorities will consider the cognitive habits of the relevant public when determining whether the three-dimensional mark can indicate the source of the goods. For example, in determining the inherent distinctiveness, the authorities will consider the degree of association of the three-dimensional mark with the goods or services designated for use, and the average level of awareness of the relevant public. As for acquired distinctiveness, the authorities will place more emphasis on the actual use of the three-dimensional mark, the business operation situation, and the popularity of the goods involved in the relevant public. Whether the evidence in the case can prove that the disputed mark has been well known to the relevant public and has a high reputation after use, and whether it can indicate the source of goods or service, are the important factors in determining whether the three-dimensional mark is distinctive.

2. Non-functionality of Three-dimensional Trademarks

Article 12 of the Trademark Law in China stipulates that the shape produced only by the nature of the goods themselves, the shape of the goods required to achieve technical effects, or the shape that provides the goods with substantial value shall not be registered as trademarks. It clarifies three cases in which the registration of a three-dimensional mark is restricted, namely not to have “nature functionality” (such as the round shape of a tire for its normal operation), “practical functionality” (such as the three-dimensional shape of the razor head with three blades to achieve the close angle for shaving) and “aesthetic functionality” (such as beautifully designed jewelry). In short, a three-dimensional trademark must be non-functional; otherwise it shall not be approved for registration.

Listed below are several cases to provide you with a view on the judicial review of the functionality of three-dimensional trademarks in China.

1. Guangdong Ke Wei’s Chocolate Rose Case9

The disputed trademark is a three-dimensional rose mark “”. The design of the mark is of relatively low level of originality, and roses and “chocolate; candy” and other goods can be associated as holiday gifts. Guangdong Ke Wei Chocolate Food Co., Ltd. (“Guangdong Ke Wei”) makes its “chocolate; candy” products into a rose shape, which intends to affect consumers’ willingness to purchase through the appearance and shape of the goods, which belongs to the circumstance where the shape of the goods has substantial value, and is not likely to be identified by the relevant public as a trademark to distinguish the source of goods. As such, the mark lacks the distinctiveness that a registered trademark should have.

2. Guangdong You Kai’s Transparent Water Drop Laundry Detergent Packaging Case10

The disputed trademark “” is a three-dimensional mark that consists of three (3) identical “comma-shaped transparent water droplets” splicing end-to-end to form a circle around the center, and a square frame. When the mark is used with respect to the goods “laundry detergent”, it belongs to the storage package of such products and the mark itself has a functional effect. The relevant public is first likely to identify the mark as the packaging of “laundry detergent”, rather than as a trademark. As such, the mark is not likely to distinguish the source of goods, and lacks the distinctiveness that a trademark should have.

3. Repsol, S.A.’s Fuel Container Case11

The disputed trademark “” is a container in the shape of a three-dimensional fuel case with claimed colors. The upper half of the container is designed with a graphic logo in white background along the shape of the container. The disputed mark is used with respect to its designated goods “oils and greases for industrial use; lubricants; etc.” in Class 4, and mainly indicates the functional feature of the goods themselves. The relevant public will identify the mark as containers containing the goods, rather than as a trademark that distinguishes the source of goods. As such, the mark lacks the distinctiveness that a trademark should have.

The author found that the current judicial trial in China does not attach enough attention to non-functionality examination, and most of the judicial precedents related to three-dimensional trademarks focused on analyzing distinctiveness, and there are not many judgments that mentioned functionality. Although the current legislation excludes the approval of the registration of marks with aesthetic functionality, the definition thereof is still relatively vague, which also leaves room for the judicial authorities to determine the “shape of substantial value”. For example, some judges have provided the following views on the review of aesthetic functionality in relevant precedents.

A． Consideration should be given to whether the three-dimensional mark will influence the consumer’s intention to purchase. If the purchaser finally decides to buy based on the aesthetics contained in the product, it should be considered having substantial value.

B． Consideration should be given to whether the three-dimensional mark deprives peers of the opportunity to compete, resulting in an undue competitive advantage.

The author believes that the above-mentioned examination views will provide a clear idea for the future examination of aesthetic functionality of three-dimensional trademarks in China, and will also leave room for registration for those three-dimensional trademarks that do not influence consumers’ purchase intention or do not have improper competitive advantages. It is hoped that in the near future, with the increasing number of judgments on aesthetic functionality of three-dimensional trademarks, China can formulate a clearer standard at the earliest opportunity.

5. Right Enforcement for Three-dimensional Trademarks

As previously mentioned, due to the small number of registrations of three-dimensional trademarks in China, there are not many cases of right enforcement disclosed at present. Let's first look at the current situation of three-dimensional trademark right enforcement in China from a few cases.

1. LEGO Three-dimensional Trademark Cases

1. AliExpress Infringement Complaints12

The minifigure design owned by LEGO JURIS A/S (“LEGO JURIS”) is a three-dimensional trademark of a character in LEGO toys. The hats, clothes, weapons and other ornaments of the accused infringing figures are removable, and once removed, the figure is the same as the image of LEGO’s minifigure. As such, the accused infringing product constitutes infringement.

2. Civil Infringement Case13

The court held that the “LEGO” logo used on the front, hangtag, zipper puller, etc. of the accused infringing goods was the same as the plaintiff LEGO JURIS’ registered trademark “LEGO”. The use of the accused infringing mark on the shoulder strap and hangtag was similar to the plaintiff’s three-dimensional trademark in terms of composing elements, design style and visual effects, which constitutes a similar trademark. One of the defendants, Guangzhou Zhong Nuo Leather Products Co., Ltd. (“Zhong Nuo”), filed trademark application No. 28330367, but was not approved for registration. In addition, although the graphic mark used on the accused infringing products is the same as Zhong Nuo’s “Robot Minion” work, the date of completion of the work is later than December 14, 2013, the registration date of the right holder’s three-dimensional trademark, and thus it cannot defend against the plaintiff’s prior trademark rights. Taking into account the high popularity of LEGO JURIS’ “LEGO” and “樂高 (LEGO in Traditional Chinese Characters)” trademarks with respect to toy goods, the defendant was ordered to compensate the plaintiff CNY130,000 (approx. USD 19,392) for economic losses and reasonable rights protection expenses.

2. Martell XO Three-dimensional Trademark Case14

Through the use and promotion of the three-dimensional trademark involved in the case, the plaintiff Martell & Co has made the relevant public establish the connection between the specific shape of the liquor bottle reflected in the three-dimensional trademark involved in the case and the plaintiff, so that the relevant public could associate the similar bottle shape with Martell XO product. The overall appearance of the accused infringing goods and the combination of each element are consistent with the characteristics embodied in the three-dimensional trademark involved in the case, which is likely to cause confusion and misidentification of the source of goods or services amongst the relevant public. As such, the accused infringing product should be regarded as a similar to the three-dimensional trademark. Taking into account the large scale of the defendant’s infringing act, the long time of infringement, and the ascertained sales of the products involved in the case on the Internet, the defendant was ordered to immediately terminate the infringing act, compensate the plaintiff for economic losses of CNY 1.05 million (approx. USD 156,651) (including reasonable expenses of CNY 100,000 (approx. USD 14,919)), and publish a statement in China Intellectual Property News, Strait News, and Wendu News to eliminate the impact of infringement.

3. Three-dimensional Trademarks of Gu Jing Gong Jiu Liquor Bottle and Packaging Box Case15

The court held that there were slight differences between the liquor bottles used in the “Jin Jing Fu” original puree liquor series products produced by the liquor company in Bozhou and the packaging box used by Anhui Gu Jing Gong Jiu Co., Ltd. (“Gu Jing Gong Jiu”) in terms of text labeling, dragon-shaped ornamentation on the bottle body, and the picture of the spokesperson, etc., but it is highly similar in terms of the metal-colored sealing ring on the bottle body, the bottle cap and the bottle mouth, the size, the bottle pattern and the text position in its composition design, etc.. The overall visual effect is likely to lead to confusion and misidentification amongst the relevant public. As such, the accused infringing product is similar to the three-dimensional trademark, and thus constitutes infringement. The defendant was ordered to immediately terminate the infringing act and compensate the plaintiff CNY 105,000 (approx. USD 15,679).

4. Jiu Gui Liquor Bottle Three-dimensional Trademark Case16

The court held that the bottles of the two parties were identical in terms of bottle mouth, neck, and the shape and size of the sack-shaped bottle body, and that only the color and the grain on bottle body were slightly different, which did not affect the overall visual effect. Judged by the average attention of the relevant public, it would indeed lead to confusion, which constituted trademark infringement. Due to the defendant’s knowledge and cognition of the plaintiff's registered trademark, and that the defendant’s claims of OEM production and entrusting party’s ownership of intellectual property rights seriously deviated from the objective factual judgment, it had violated the principle of good faith, and the infringement was obviously out of bad faith. As such, the liability for infringement compensation should be increased. In the end, the court ordered the defendant to immediately terminate producing and selling the infringing products, and to compensate the plaintiff CNY 400,000 (approx. USD 59,712) in total for losses and reasonable expenses.

Although there are currently few cases of judicial protection of three-dimensional trademarks disclosed in China, from the above cases, the liquor manufacturers with the largest number of three-dimensional trademark registrations in Class 33 are undoubtedly the main force in the protection of three-dimensional trademarks. As shown above, whether it is Martell & Co, Gu Jing Gong Jiu Liquor, or Jiu Gui Liquor, the three-dimensional trademark rights enforcement by multiple distilleries has been supported by the court, and the amount of compensation awarded ranges from more than CNY 100,000 (approx. USD 14,927) to CNY 1 million (approx. USD 149,272), which fully reflects China’s judicial protection of the three-dimensional trademarks. Of course, the relevant distilleries actively use liquor bottles as an indication of source of various products, which to a certain extent has successfully cultivated the habit of Chinese consumers to identify bottles on a variety of shelves, and also laid the foundation for the judicial protection of related three-dimensional trademarks.

Overall, at present, when the court compares the composite three-dimensional trademark of three-dimensional shape and planar elements for infringement, the court basically maintains the view in the Hennessy Case17, one of the 50 typical intellectual property cases in China in 2017, that is, when the three-dimensional trademark involved in the case has been widely used and promoted by the plaintiff and has gained a high reputation, the relevant public has established a stable connection between the plaintiff and the three-dimensional trademark, especially the three-dimensional shape in the three-dimensional trademark, the three-dimensional shape in the three-dimensional trademark is no longer merely a container for goods and it has already played a role in distinguishing the source of goods. The combination of three-dimensional shape and the planar elements will not weaken its original recognition function, and on the contrary, it will strengthen the connection with the brand to a certain extent. Of course, whether the involved parties in the dispute are in the same industry, whether the alleged infringing goods have the bad faith of exploiting the goodwill of the right owner’s trademark, etc., are also important factors for the judge in judging whether infringement should be established and whether the penalty needs to be increased.

6. Conclusion

The registration and judicial protection of three-dimensional trademarks are still in the exploratory stage in China, for example, the insufficient examination of non-functionality, lack of unified standards for the conclusion of acquired distinctiveness, and there are still many things to be improved. How to better protect the freedom of competition and the legitimate rights and interests of business operators in the registration and judicial protection of three-dimensional trademarks, and achieve a balance of interests between the two, is an important topic left for all of us to think about.

References:

1. Trademark Review [2019] No. 0000062214 Refusal Appeal Decision

2. Trademark Review [2020] No. 0000227978 Refusal Appeal Decision

3. Trademark Review [2020] No. 0000120481 Refusal Appeal Decision

4. Trademark Review [2021] No. 0000170886 Refusal Appeal Decision

5. (2020) Jing 73 Administrative First No. 2454 Administrative Judgment

6. (2020) Jing 73 Administrative First No. 6728 Administrative Judgment

7. (2020) Jing Administrative Final No. 3759 Administrative Judgment

8. (2020) Jing Administrative Final No. 4758 Administrative Judgment

9. (2020) Jing Administrative Final No. 790 Administrative Judgment

10. (2019) Jing 73 Administrative First No. 15130 Administrative Judgment

11. (2019) Jing Administrative Final No. 7936 Administrative Judgment

12. AliExpress Intellectual Property Top Infringement Cases (August 2017）

https://sell.aliexpress.com/zh/__pc/IPR_Aug.htm

13. (2020) Yue 0114 Civil First No. 13947 Civil Judgment

14. （2018）Zhe 0304 Civil First No. 1955 Civil Judgment

15. Free-Ride on Famous Brand of Three-dimensional Trademark, Court Awarded CNY 100,000 for Compensation (July 13, 2021)

http://www.jsfy.gov.cn/art/2021/07/13/168_104688.html (CHEN Lei, Wujiang District People’s Court)

16. (2020) Xiang 01 Civil Final No. 6703 Civil Judgment

17. (2016) Yu 0112 Civil First No. 17407 Civil Judgment

18. Examination of Distinctiveness of Three-dimensional Trademarks (May 30, 2018)

http://www.chinatrial.net.cn/magazineinfo1640.html CUI Guobin

19. How to Determine the Distinctiveness of Three-dimensional Trademark Composed of Product Shape (November 27, 2020)

http://www.cipedu.com/News/Detail/970.html FENG Shujie

20. The Two Requirements for Protection of Three-dimensional Trademark

http://www.iprdaily.cn/article_23381.html LIU Fushun