acebook recently won a significant trademark lawsuit in China, as the Beijing Higher People's Court issued a ruling in favor of the social media giant and prohibited a local beverage producer from using the words "face book" on its products.
The court ruling is significant in the view that recently, Apple Inc. lost a trademark case in China when the local court granted the trademark 'IPHONE" to leather manufacturer in the country stating that iPhones were not introduced into the country when the leather product maker used the trademark for its items.
As far as the case related to Facebook's trademark is concerned, a Zhongshan-based beverage producer, Zhujiang Pearl River Beverages, had registered the trademark "face book" in 2011 for its milk-flavored drinks and porridge. The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board approved the company's application in 2014, which was objected by Facebook, CNN Money reported.
Recently, a post on the Chinese website Weibo revealed that the Beijing court had revoked the ruling of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to grant the trademark to the beverage production firm in view of the objections raised by Facebook. Issuing its verdict last month, the court said that the "face book" labeling by the Zhujiang Pearl River Beverages on some of its foods and beverages is an act of trademark infringement and it was in violation of fair market competition.
Arguing on behalf of the company's stand, Zhujiang Pearl River Beverages marketing manager Liu Hongqun said that "face book" ("lian shu" in the local language) portrays something that is intrinsic in Chinese culture. According to Liu, in Chinese operas, the term "lian shu" is used to denote delicately designed masks that are also called "face books," Tech Times reported.
At the same time, Liu pointed that although Facebook is certainly a renowned and popular brand globally, the Chinese regulators have blocked its services in the country since 2009. Since no or very few Chinese can actually access Facebook in mainland China, his company was not violating the fair market competition.
