The question “What if my name is registered as a trademark without my consent?” arises frequently for renowned professionals whose names carry substantial commercial value. Recently, Jiaquan IP Law successfully defended a well-known Japanese silversmith against multiple bad-faith trademark applications in China, providing useful insights in how personal name rights can be invoked in trademark opposition and invalidation proceedings.

Legal Ground for Name Rights

Under the Chinese Trademark Law, the right to a personal name extends to living natural persons, including not only legal names but also pseudonyms, stage names, pen names, aliases, and translated names, which provided they point to a specific individual.

To establish protection, three cumulative conditions must be met:

1. Recognition The name must have a certain level of recognition in the relevant field and be consistently tied to a particular individual. In practice, the standard is met if the public, when seeing the name, naturally thinks of that person.
   
2. Likelihood of Harm The disputed trademark must be capable of harming the individual’s name rights. When evaluating harm, examiners consider: how well known the name is; whether the goods/services covered by the mark overlap with the field in which the person is known; whether the applicant clearly knew the name belonged to another but filed anyway to exploit or damage that person’s reputation.
   
3. No Consent The application must have been filed without the individual’s authorization. If the applicant claims permission, the burden is on the applicant to prove it.
   

If the requirements for asserting personal name rights cannot be met, for example, where the individual has passed away, or where protection is sought for the title of a well-known work or a fictional character; the opponents may still challenge the trademark. In such cases, arguments can be made that the disputed mark misleads the public, disrupts public order, or creates other negative impacts. Specifically, oppositions or invalidation actions may rely on Article 10(1)(7) of the Trademark Law (prohibiting marks that are deceptive or have other adverse influence) or Article 10(1)(8) (prohibiting marks harmful to public morals or having other negative social effects).

Jiaquan’s Win Case

In this case, we opposed five published trademark applications, filed by different parties, that incorporated either the Chinese or English translated name of our client, a renowned Japanese silversmith. The oppositions were ultimately successful, protecting the client’s name rights and strengthening his overall trademark protection strategy in China. The case illustrates how name rights can be combined with other legal theories in a multi-pronged approach:

Opposition No. 1 (Class 14: Jewelry and related goods)

o   Grounds: Copyright + English name rights.

o   The graphic element of the mark reproduced the client’s original signature design (infringing copyright), while the text element directly used his well-known English translated name (infringing name rights).

Opposition No. 2 (Class 14: Jewelry and related goods)

o   Grounds: Chinese name rights.

Oppositions Nos. 3 & 4 (Classes 24: Towels; 25: Clothing)

o   Grounds: English name rights + bad-faith filing.

Opposition No. 5 (Class 14: Watch straps and watches)

o   Grounds: Chinese and English name rights + copyright + prior trademark rights + bad-faith filing.

Key to Success: Proving the Three Elements of Name Rights

The outcome in this case hinged on presenting strong, multi-faceted evidence to establish the three statutory elements for name rights protection:

1. Reputation and Stable Association Search Engine Results: Searches on major Chinese and Japanese platforms for the client’s name (in Chinese, English, and Japanese) overwhelmingly pointed to him and his silverwork. Media Coverage: Articles and interviews in leading Japanese and Chinese fashion and lifestyle magazines confirmed his recognition and influence. Celebrity Endorsement: Screenshots from a prominent Chinese pop star’s social media post, featuring and crediting the silversmith’s jewelry, demonstrated visibility among high-end consumers and within popular culture.
   
2. Likelihood of Harm and Relevance Fame of the Name: The above evidence was sufficient to establish recognition among the relevant Chinese public. Later cases further relied on this record to support findings of notoriety. Overlap with Goods/Services: Searches on Chinese and Japanese e-commerce platforms showed that the client’s name was consistently associated with jewelry and silver products—identical or closely related to the goods in the disputed applications. Intent to Exploit: Price comparisons revealed that the client’s authentic silver pieces sold at significantly higher prices than ordinary jewelry, proving the commercial value of his name. The applicants’ choice to register marks in jewelry, silverware, and watch-related classes was clearly designed to exploit his reputation and mislead consumers.
   

In addition to relying on Article 32 of the Trademark Law (protection of prior rights, including personal name rights), we advanced several supplementary grounds for refusal of the disputed marks:

· Article 4 – The applications were not filed for genuine use but were instead “malicious registrations not intended for actual use.”

· Article 44(1) – The applicants obtained registration “by deceptive or other improper means.”

· Article 7(1) – The applications violated the principle of good faith.

Jiaquan team’s arguments were supported by the following factual findings:

· Trademark Hoarding: A comprehensive review of the applicants’ filing history revealed dozens of trademark applications identical or highly similar to well-known brands and personal names. These spanned a wide range of classes and goods/services, far beyond any reasonable scope of business.

· Bad-Faith Use: Investigation of the applicants’ online shops showed they were selling products from other Japanese niche jewelry brands without authorization and had even attempted to register those brand names as trademarks.

· Lack of Genuine Use Intent: Taken together with the volume of filings, the applicants’ business scope, and their market activity and demonstrated an absence of bona fide intent to use the marks.

Notably, while the oppositions were pending, Jiaquan’s team also filed trademark applications in China on behalf of our client in core classes. One of these registrations was approved even before the fifth opposition was launched, creating an effective rights barrier to further bad-faith attempts.

Practical Insights

• For public figures, name rights are a direct and powerful weapon against bad-faith filings. Success depends on thoroughly proving both recognition and a stable association between the name and the individual.
  
• Bad faith is often the key breakthrough. Evidence of large-scale hoarding, unauthorized use, and lack of genuine intent can trigger application of Articles 7 and 44 of the Trademark Law, significantly increasing the chances of success in opposition or invalidation proceedings.
  
• Comprehensive, multi-source evidence is most persuasive. Search engine results, media reports, celebrity endorsements, and market pricing all help establish reputation. Proof of bad faith, in contrast, requires in-depth investigation of the applicant’s overall trademark filing patterns and business conduct.
  
• Proactive registration is essential. Rights holders should not only monitor and oppose bad-faith filings but also file their own applications in core and related classes and register copyrights where applicable. Where reputation and stable association are easy to prove, name rights and copyright can support cross-class oppositions (as in this case with Classes 3 and 4). Where reputation is harder to establish, prior trademark rights within the same or similar goods/services classes may be more effective.
  

The successful oppositions in this case not only safeguarded the Japanese silversmith’s personal name and commercial reputation, but also demonstrated how name rights, combined with other provisions of the Trademark Law, can be strategically deployed to construct a robust opposition and invalidation framework. When facing name-based squatting, Jiaquan IP Law encourage rights holders to act proactively and use all available tools to defend their legitimate interests.