With the deepening of China's opening-up, both foreign companies entering the Chinese market and domestic companies expanding overseas often choose to register English trademarks as part of their brand strategy. Whether an English trademark can be registered depends significantly on its meaning, as it relates to various aspects of trademark registrability. For instance, an English trademark with a specific meaning may be rejected on absolute grounds, such as lack of distinctiveness, deceptiveness, or adverse effects. It may also be rejected on relative grounds if its meaning is identical or similar to an existing Chinese trademark. In recent years, China has tightened its examination standards for English trademarks, with many being rejected under Article 10(7) or 10(8) of the Trademark Law due to deceptiveness or adverse effects. In such cases, not only is the trademark denied registration, but its use is also prohibited, requiring companies to pay special attention. This article attempts to analyze the standards for determining the meaning of English trademarks in administrative trademark litigation.

I. Relevant Legal Provisions

The Implementing Regulations of the Chinese Trademark Law stipulate that if a trademark is in English or contains English, its meaning must be explained. However, this does not mean that the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) must strictly follow the applicant's interpretation. Otherwise, applicants could misrepresent descriptive terms as non-descriptive or use obscure meanings to circumvent registration risks. Therefore, the applicant's explanation of the English trademark's meaning in the application can only serve as a reference for the examiner. In practice, examiners make final judgments based on their experience, examination practices, and consumer perception.

Regarding the determination of the "meaning of English trademarks," we can refer to the relevant provisions on the distinctiveness of English trademarks, as outlined in Article 8 of the Supreme People's Court's Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases Involving Trademark Authorization and Confirmation: When a disputed trademark is an English mark, the People's Court shall examine and determine whether the mark has distinctive characteristics based on the general understanding of the relevant public in China. The inherent meaning of the English mark may affect its distinctiveness for the designated goods, but if the relevant public has a low level of recognition of this inherent meaning and can use the mark to identify the source of the goods, it may be deemed distinctive.

From the above provisions, it is clear that the determination of an English trademark's meaning depends not only on its literal meaning but also on the general cognitive level of the relevant public.

II. Standards for Determining the Meaning of English Trademarks in Judicial Practice

Determining the meaning of an English trademark may seem simple—just consult a dictionary. However, in administrative trademark litigation, many issues and disputes often arise. For example, how to determine the meaning of a word with multiple meanings, how to interpret two words combined, and whether the standards for applying different legal provisions are consistent. Let us analyze the courts' standards through several relevant cases.

2.1 The Principle of Holistic Judgment

In the administrative dispute case of the "BIODERMA" trademark application rejection, the CNIPA, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, and the Beijing High People's Court all split "BIODERMA" into the roots "BIO" and "DERMA," interpreting its meaning as "biological dermis." However, the Supreme People's Court, in its retrial, held that the distinctiveness of a disputed trademark should be judged based on the overall composition and meaning of the mark, rather than isolating specific elements. Although "BIO" means "biological" and "DERMA" means "dermis," the Supreme Court found that "DERMA" is not a commonly used root, and the relevant Chinese public would not generally understand "BIODERMA" as "biological dermis." The distinctiveness of the disputed trademark should be considered based on its overall composition and meaning, and the combination of split roots should not be mechanically used as the basis for determining inherent meaning. "BIODERMA" is not listed in common English-Chinese or medical dictionaries. Online dictionaries such as Baidu Translate, Google, Kingsoft, and Youdao translate "BIODERMA" as "Bioderma" or "French Bioderma," supporting the conclusion that the mark serves to identify and distinguish the source of goods.

From this case, we can see that for English trademarks composed of multiple letters, the principle of holistic judgment should apply, and arbitrary splitting should be avoided. However, if the applicant intentionally guides consumers to split the trademark into parts through uppercase letters, hyphens, or spaces, each part should be judged separately. For example, in the "eDisk" trademark rejection case, the Beijing High People's Court held that "eDisk" consists of "e" and "Disk," where "e" is commonly used as a substitute for "electronic," and "Disk" is a name for electronic products. Although the applicant claimed to be the first to combine the two, the uppercase "D" in "eDisk" naturally led consumers to read "e" and "Disk" separately. Thus, the combination, while creative, did not change the fact that both parts were generic names for the designated goods, and the lack of distinctiveness did not violate the principle of holistic examination.

Similarly, even if the trademark is not intentionally split, if the relevant public is likely to perceive it as multiple parts, each part should be judged separately. For example, in the "supershot" case, the court held that consumers would likely understand the trademark as "super strong shot," which directly described the functional characteristics of the goods (injection molding machines), and thus upheld the rejection decision.

2.2 Judgment Based on Specific Context

English words often have multiple meanings, including literal, extended, and metaphorical meanings. The extended or metaphorical meanings may be more widely used than the literal meaning. Therefore, the specific meaning of an English trademark cannot be generalized and must be judged based on the context and the designated goods, using the general cognitive level of the relevant public as the standard. For example, in the "Run Feng Qian Li World Talent Bank" rejection case, the CNIPA held that "bank" means "bank," and since the applicant was not a bank, using "bank" would mislead consumers about the source of the services, violating Article 10(7) of the Trademark Law. However, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court ruled that while "bank" can mean "bank," it can also mean "repository" or "collection" when combined with other words, such as "a bank of knowledge" (knowledge repository) or "a blood bank" (blood bank). Therefore, the meaning of "bank" in the disputed trademark should be understood in context, and its combination with "talent" corresponded to "brain repository," not violating Article 10(7).

2.3 Stricter Examination Standards

In recent years, the CNIPA and courts have become stricter in examining the meanings of English trademarks. If a word has even one meaning that is deceptive or has adverse effects, it may be rejected under absolute grounds such as Article 10(7) or 10(8). For example, "gaming" can mean both "games" and "gambling." While "games" is the more common meaning, recent cases have seen trademarks containing "gaming" rejected due to the "gambling" meaning. Similarly, for trademarks containing "green," the Beijing High People's Court once held that "green" primarily means "green," with "environmentally friendly" as an extended meaning, and consumers would not assume that "green" products are of higher quality. However, in recent cases, the court has ruled that "green" used on cosmetics and beauty products could mislead consumers into thinking the products are environmentally friendly or use green ingredients, leading to rejection. While different conclusions based on specific cases are normal, it is evident that examination standards have become stricter in recent years.

2.4 Use of Online Definitions

In determining the inherent meaning of English trademarks, in addition to referencing authoritative dictionaries and literature, online definitions have gained increasing importance. To improve efficiency, examiners often first consult online tools like Baidu Translate before making a comprehensive judgment. However, online dictionaries may include meanings that are not widely recognized, making trademark registration more challenging. For example, in the "SKIN VAPE" rejection case, the CNIPA interpreted "VAPE" as "vaping" (using e-cigarettes) and rejected the application under Article 10(7). Although the applicant argued that "VAPE" had been registered in multiple cases without rejection, was not listed in authoritative dictionaries, and was not widely recognized by the public as "vaping," the courts upheld the rejection based on online search results, which showed that "VAPE" is commonly understood as "vaping" or "e-hookah." This case illustrates that, in the internet era, the CNIPA and courts increasingly rely on online definitions to determine the general public's understanding.

Conclusion

The meaning of an English trademark depends not only on its dictionary definition but also on consumer perception and specific usage contexts. Before applying to register an English trademark, in addition to conducting a prior trademark search, it is advisable to analyze its meaning to avoid rejection on absolute grounds.