According to Several Provisions of the Supreme Court on Jurisdiction of Civil and Administrative Cases of Intellectual Property Rights of First Instance (hereinafter referred to as Provisions), Beijing Intellectual Property Court issued the first inadmissibility ruling on a trademark infringement dispute that did not involve the identification of well-known trademarks. 

On May 5th, a certain company engaged in paper products technology development, and manufacturing and processing of paper products and sanitary products filed a lawsuit with Beijing Intellectual Property Court. It is claimed that a bank in Beijing and its sub-branches and other affiliated companies illegally sold counterfeit paper products produced by plaintiff, which infringed its exclusive right to use registered trademarks and caused losses to the plaintiff. The plaintiff hence requested the court to order the four defendants to compensate the tentative loss of using the exclusive right to use trademarks of 62.16 million yuan and reasonable expenses of 500,000 yuan. 

Some Backgrounds of the Case

Several Provisions of the Supreme Court on the Jurisdiction of Civil and Administrative Cases of Intellectual Property Rights of First Instance (hereinafter referred to as the Provisions) (The Provisions) was adopted at the 1858th Meeting of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme Court on December 27, 2021 and will come into force on May 1, 2022. 

Article 1 of the Provisions stipulates that: "Civil and administrative cases of first instance of invention patents, utility model patents, new plant varieties, layout design of integrated circuits, technical secrets, ownership of computer software, infringement disputes and monopoly disputes shall be under jurisdiction of the intellectual property courts, the intermediate courts in districts where the governments of provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the central government are located, as well as the intermediate courts determined by the Supreme Court. 

Article 2 of the Provisions stipulates that: "Civil and administrative cases of first instance of the ownership of design patents, infringement disputes and identification of well-known trademarks shall be under the jurisdiction of intellectual property courts and intermediate courts; with the approval of the Supreme Court, it may also be under the jurisdiction of grassroots courts, except for administrative cases of design patents." 

Article 3 of the Provisions stipulates that: "Civil and administrative cases of intellectual property rights of first instance other than those stipulated in Articles 1 and 2 of the Provisions shall be under the jurisdiction of the grassroots courts determined by the Supreme Court." 

According to the above provisions, except for civil cases of first instance involving the identification of well-known trademarks, civil cases of first instance involving trademark infringement disputes should be under the jurisdiction of grassroots courts determined by the Supreme Court. In addition, according to the Notice of the Supreme Court on Printing and Distributing the Standards for Intellectual Property Civil and Administrative Cases of First Instance under the Jurisdiction of Grassroots Courts, since May 1, 2022, the jurisdiction of six grassroots courts in Beijing over intellectual property civil cases of first instance is not limited by the amount of litigation objects. 

According to the above Provisions:

First, cases officially filed before May 1, 2022 with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court in the first instance and were adjusted to the jurisdiction of six grassroots courts in Beijing after the implementation of the Regulations will continue to be tried by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. 

For cases that were originally under the jurisdiction of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court in the first instance and were adjusted to the jurisdiction of six grassroots people's courts in Beijing after the implementation of the Regulations: 

1. If the parties file a lawsuit for the first time before May 1 (excluding this day), and is accepted by the court after rectification of the lack of materials, it will be tried by Beijing Intellectual Property Court no matter whether the final rectification date exceeds May 1. 

2. If a party files a lawsuit with Beijing Intellectual Property Court after May 1 (including this day), it shall be informed to bring the lawsuit to the grassroots court. If the party insists on filing case with the IP Court, the filing shall be ruled to have been withdrawn. 

In view of the fact that the prosecution of the above-mentioned case does not involve the identification of well-known trademarks, Beijing Intellectual Property Court has explained the latest regulations on jurisdiction adjustment to the prosecutor in the filing window and instructed him to bring the case to the grassroots court. However, the prosecutor insisted on filing the lawsuit with Beijing Intellectual Property Court. 

On May 11th, Beijing Intellectual Property Court issued a ruling of inadmissibility against the plaintiff's prosecution according to the latest jurisdiction regulations mentioned above.