Chinese Fruit Company Secures UK Trademark Victory in Pear-Name Dispute

If a trademark is likened to a fruit's "identity card," then the "Mountain Pear" and "Yu Lu Fragrant Pear" trademarks held by a Chinese fruit company, referred to as Company X International, are undoubtedly "VIP gold cards." A judgment issued on February 20 by the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) in the United Kingdom brought this cross-border dispute over "pear identity" to a close. The court held that the four UK trademarks registered by Company X International Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Company X International")—namely "MOUNTAIN PEAR," "山梨" (Mountain Pear), "YU LU FRAGRANT PEAR," and "玉露香梨" (Yu Lu Fragrant Pear)—are valid and lawful. It further ruled that the use of identical signs by the defendant, Company Y Foods Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Company Y Foods"), in the sale of fruits constituted infringement, and dismissed all of the defendant's defenses, including claims that the trademarks were generic variety names or lacked distinctiveness.

Both the claimant, Company X International, and the defendant, Company Y Foods, are engaged in the import and supply of Chinese and Asian fruits. Since 2018, Company X International has introduced "Gong Pears" from Shanxi Province, China, to the UK market and registered trademarks such as "MOUNTAIN PEAR," "YU LU FRAGRANT PEAR," and their Chinese counterparts. It established brand recognition through standardized packaging featuring prominent ® symbols and its company brand.

In 2025, Company X International discovered that Company Y Foods was selling identical pears in UK supermarkets under the same trademarks and subsequently initiated legal proceedings for trademark infringement under Section 10(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA). Company Y Foods filed a counterclaim, seeking a declaration that the trademarks were invalid or should be revoked, arguing inter alia that: the trademarks were generic names of pear varieties (e.g., "Mountain Pear" referring to pears grown in mountainous areas); they lacked distinctiveness; they were registered in bad faith (with the intention of monopolizing the market); and they had become generic through long-term use.

After hearing the case, the IPEC made clear determinations on four core issues, systematically rejecting the defendant's claims.

1. Whether the Trademarks Possess Distinctiveness

The defendant argued that "MOUNTAIN PEAR" and "YU LU FRAGRANT PEAR" described pear varieties or characteristics (e.g., "Mountain Pear" suggesting mountain-grown pears, and "Yu Lu Fragrant Pear" describing aroma) and therefore lacked distinctiveness under Sections 3(1)(b)-(c) of the TMA.

The court found that "MOUNTAIN PEAR" is a distinctive sign. Company X International was the first to introduce "Gong Pears" to the UK, and this trademark was directly tied to the specific pears from a particular产区 it exclusively supplied, with no necessary connection to "mountain cultivation" (as pears are typically grown in valleys, not mountainous areas). The trademark "YU LU FRAGRANT PEAR" was also found to be distinctive. "Yu Lu" is a poetic Chinese expression (not a scientific variety name), and the English version, "YU LU FRAGRANT PEAR," when considered alongside the packaging and the ® symbol, would not be directly perceived by UK consumers as a pear variety name (the court emphasized that "Western consumers have limited knowledge of recently hybridized Chinese pear varieties"). Packaging reinforced distinctiveness: Company X International prominently displayed the ® symbol and its trademarks on all product packaging. Consumers primarily identified the source through the packaging, and the presence of shelf-edge labels without the ® symbol did not affect the trademark's source-indicating function.

2. Whether the Trademarks Had Become Generic

The defendant claimed that the trademarks had become generic names for pear varieties within the industry under Section 3(1)(d) of the TMA.

The court found that evidence submitted by Company X International showed it had consistently promoted its brand since introducing "Gong Pears" in 2018 and had not allowed the trademarks to become generic. The defendant failed to prove that "the public generally perceived the trademarks as generic names." In fact, the sole director of Company Y Foods admitted to "knowing that 'MOUNTAIN PEAR' was not a variety name and there was no evidence to the contrary." Evidence purporting to show that the trademarks had become customary terms (such as industry manuals) post-dated the trademark registration dates and lacked probative value.

3. Whether the Trademarks Were Registered in Bad Faith

The defendant alleged that Company X International registered other pear-related trademarks (such as "SNOW PEAR" and "RED FRAGRANCE"), some unsuccessfully, in bad faith with the intention of monopolizing the market under Section 3(6) of the TMA.

The court noted that Company X International's other registered trademarks were entitled to a presumption of validity, and there was no evidence that it intended to harm competition. The scope of trademark registration is limited to the goods for which they are registered and does not constitute an unlawful monopoly over "generic pear varieties" (drawing an analogy: "Coca-Cola's registration of 'CHERRY COKE' does not prohibit supermarkets from selling cherries").

4. Whether the Trademarks Should Be Revoked

The defendant argued that the trademarks should be revoked for becoming generic under Section 46(1)(c) of the TMA. The court held that Company X International not only failed to acquiesce in their use but had actively enforced its rights through litigation (e.g., taking action against prior infringers). Thus, the conditions for revocation based on genericization "resulting from the acts or inactivity of the proprietor" were not met.

The IPEC ultimately ruled that the trademarks registered by Company X International are distinctive and do not violate Section 3 of the TMA (concerning descriptiveness, generic character, or bad faith). Company Y Foods' unauthorized use of identical signs constituted infringement under Section 10(1) of the TMA. Company Y Foods, as the infringing entity, was held liable, and its sole director was jointly liable for authorizing and procuring the infringing acts.

Section 3(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994

(1) The following shall not be registered—
(a) signs which do not satisfy the requirements of section 1(1),
(b) trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character,
(c) trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, the time of production of goods or of rendering of services, or other characteristics of goods or services,
(d) trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which have become customary in the current language or in the bona fide and established practices of the trade,

Section 3(6) of the Trade Marks Act 1994

(6) A trade mark shall not be registered if or to the extent that the application is made in bad faith.

Section 10(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994

(1) A person infringes a registered trade mark if he uses in the course of trade a sign which is identical with the trade mark in relation to goods or services which are identical with those for which it is registered.

Section 46(1)(c) of the Trade Marks Act 1994

(1) The registration of a trade mark may be revoked on any of the following grounds—
...
(c) that, in consequence of acts or inactivity of the proprietor, it has become the common name in the trade for a product or service for which it is registered;