Supreme Court Rejects Retrial Application: "Tongguan Roujiamo" Collective Mark Maintained Valid

Recently, the case concerning the invalidation of the "Tongguan Roujiamo" trademark, which lasted three years and underwent four levels of review, has finally come to an end. On May 26, 2026, the Supreme People's Court issued its ruling in (2025) Zui Gao Fa Xing Shen No. 9206, rejecting the retrial application filed by the petitioner, Wang, thereby affirming the validity of the "Tongguan Roujiamo" geographical indication collective mark.

In 2021, the Tongguan Roujiamo Association filed hundreds of trademark infringement lawsuits nationwide against small eateries using the term "Tongguan Roujiamo," demanding compensation and franchise fees, which sparked widespread public controversy. The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) promptly issued a statement clarifying that the Association had no right to prohibit legitimate use of the place name by businesses within the specific Tongguan region, nor could it charge franchise fees to businesses outside that region.

In 2023, an individual named Wang filed a request for invalidation with the CNIPA, arguing that the collective mark No. 14369120 "Tongguan Roujiamo" lacked distinctiveness, violated geographical indication protection provisions, and had been obtained through fraudulent means. The CNIPA issued a ruling maintaining the registration of the mark. It follows from this that although the CNIPA asserted that the Tongguan Roujiamo Association had no right to rely on the said collective mark to prohibit legitimate use of the place name by businesses within the specific Tongguan region, this did not mean the mark should be invalidated.

Dissatisfied with the CNIPA's ruling, Wang brought the case before the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.

On October 25, 2024, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court rendered its first-instance judgment, holding that the CNIPA had failed to address the matter in light of Article 16(2) (concerning geographical indication protection) during its examination, which constituted a procedural omission. Accordingly, the court annulled the CNIPA's maintenance ruling and ordered a re-examination.

Both the CNIPA and the Tongguan Roujiamo Association appealed to the Beijing High People's Court. On July 11, 2025, the Beijing High Court issued its second-instance judgment, reversing the first-instance judgment, dismissing Wang's claims, and ultimately upholding the CNIPA's ruling.

The court of second instance held that the disputed mark was registered on December 14, 2015, and more than five years had passed by the time the invalidation request was filed in 2023. The geographical indication provisions fall under relative grounds for invalidation as set forth in Article 45 of the Trademark Law, and are subject to the five-year preclusive period. A party may not substantively challenge the legitimacy of a geographical indication trademark by invoking absolute grounds (Articles 10, 11, or 44) as a formal vehicle, as doing so would undermine the legislative intent behind the five-year limitation period. Furthermore, the disputed mark was neither deceptive nor lacking in distinctiveness, and there was no evidence that it had been obtained by fraudulent means; thus, it did not violate the absolute grounds for invalidation under the Trademark Law.

Wang appealed the second-instance judgment to the Supreme People's Court. On May 26, 2026, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in (2025) Zui Gao Fa Xing Shen No. 9206, rejecting the retrial application and affirming that the second-instance judgment had clearly established facts and correctly applied the law. Ultimately, the "Tongguan Roujiamo" collective mark maintains its legal validity.

The most controversial issue in this case was whether, after more than five years from the registration of a geographical indication trademark, a party could still seek invalidation on absolute grounds under the Trademark Law (e.g., lack of distinctiveness, deceptive mark, registration by fraudulent means) in order to circumvent the five-year limitation applicable to relative grounds. Both the Beijing High Court and the Supreme People's Court provided a clear negative answer. The courts held that the geographical indication provisions, as special rules specifically applicable to such marks, serve both as substantive grounds for examining the registration of geographical indication trademarks and as a determinant that invalidation requests are subject to the five-year limitation. Allowing parties to use absolute grounds as a guise to challenge the substantive validity of a geographical indication would render the five-year preclusive period in Article 45 of the Trademark Law meaningless, contrary to the legislative purpose.