On March 31st, Beijing Intellectual Property Court held a briefing on the trial of trademark rejection review cases according to Article 10.1.7 ("fraud" article) of China’s Trademark Law. Typical cases involving "fraud" article include five applicable situations, namely, those in the nature of fraud that easily confuse the public with “ingredient and raw materials", "function and usage", "technical specifications", "commodity origin" and "enterprise name". 

According to the court, the cases involving “fraud” article accounted for 3.1% of the total number of administrative cases of trademark rejection review. In such cases, 81.3% maintained the rejecting decision.

The above-mentioned five situations in which the "fraud" article is applied include five typical cases published by the court, which are listed as below:

1. Case easily confused with "ingredient and raw materials": "Mr. Selenium (硒先生)" (selenium is a trace element beneficial to human body), which is deceptive when used on class 29 commodities ("rice, flour" and so on). 

2. Case easily confused with "functional and usage": "Good Stomach (为胃好)", which is deceptive when used on class 32 commodities ("beverage" and so on).

3. Case easily confused with "technical specifications": "Fresh Squeeze of Coconut" (椰树鲜榨) (“鲜榨” means "freshly squeezed"), which is deceptive when used on class 32 commodities ("beverage" and so on). 

4. Case easily confused with "commodity origin": "BIOTECHUSA", which is deceptive when used on whatever classes.

5. Case easily confused with "enterprise name": "LIAN Funding" (礼安基金) (the applicant is not qualified as "fund manager"), which is deceptive when used on class 36 services ("finance" and so on).