On September 13, the first-instance judgment involving Shanghai Magic Power Information Technology Co., Ltd., an affiliated company of the cultural community and video platform Bilibili.com, and information and telecommunications administration department of the National Intellectual Property Administration, were made public. 

According to the documents, Magic Power filed the request for invalidation of the disputed trademark "哔哩哔哩 (Bilibili)" held by Jinjiang Jiande Food Co., Ltd., and submitted relevant evidence to the National Intellectual Property Administration. 

Jiande Food applied to the Trademark Office in 2017 to register the trademark "哔哩哔哩" on Class 30 goods or services. As early as 2014, Bilibili.com had applied to register the trademark "哔哩哔哩" on Class 41 goods or services. Bilibili.com advocates cross-class protection on the grounds that the trademark "哔哩哔哩" on Class 41 goods or services constitutes well-known trademark. 

The court held that the focus of this case was whether the application for registration of the disputed trademark constitutes the scenario as stipulated in Article 13.3 of the Trademark Law: where a trademark for registration to be used on different or dissimilar goods is a copy, imitation or translation of a well-known trademark of another party which has been registered in China, misleads the public, and may cause damage to the interests of the registrant of the well-known trademark, it shall not be registered and shall be prohibited from use. 

Criteria for identification of well-known trademarks may include: (1) the awareness of the relevant public to the trademark; (2) the duration of the use of the trademark; (3) the duration, degree and geographical scope of any publicity work of the trademark; (4) records of the trademark being protected as a well-known trademark; (5) other factors that make the trademark well-known. 

The court held that, according to the above provisions, to judge whether a trademark constitutes a well-known trademark, it is necessary to determine whether the documented evidence is sufficient to prove that the trademark has been widely publicized and promoted from the perspective of time or space in the goods or services approved for use, and the trademark has gained high popularity. In the end, the court found that the documented evidence submitted by Bilibili.com was not sufficient enough to prove that the cited trademark had gained a high reputation in area of training and other services approved for use, which did not meet the standards for the identification of well-known trademarks. On such ground, the claim of Bilibili.com was rejected by court.