Shuangfeiren / Ricqlès in China: Prior Use Must Be Reconstructed, Not Assumed

Case at a glance

Selected dispute

Prior use & packaging

Brand / case

Shuangfeiren / Ricqlès

Historical scope

(2020)最高法民再23号 · SPC retrial

Evidence

[SHUANGFEIREN-OFFICIAL]

Editorial status

Independent research; professional review pending

The specific rights

The selected dispute concerns 双飞人 word and three-dimensional marks, Ricqlès mint-water presentation and historical advertising. It is not a general ruling that all parallel imports are lawful. [SHUANGFEIREN-OFFICIAL]

Historical references only. No current registration snapshot is included; no present-day status or complete portfolio is asserted.

Selected timeline

1. From the 1990sEarlier advertising

   The summary records advertisements in parts of mainland China for the earlier product and packaging. [SHUANGFEIREN-OFFICIAL]

2. First instance and appealEarlier civil orders

   The lower courts found infringement and unfair competition. [SHUANGFEIREN-OFFICIAL]

3. Selected SPC retrialPrior-use defence

   The SPC reversed the lower judgments and dismissed the claimant’s claims. [SHUANGFEIREN-OFFICIAL]

4. 21 April 2022Official summary published

   The case was included in the 2021 annual collection; the publication date is not the judgment date. [SHUANGFEIREN-OFFICIAL]

Dates belong to the events shown. Source publication and access dates appear separately below.

What the sources actually establish

The official summary describes evidence of earlier influential packaging use and the claimant’s knowledge when obtaining and asserting similar three-dimensional marks. The prior-use defence succeeded in the selected dispute. The civil result did not itself cancel every registration or authorize unrestricted expansion. [SHUANGFEIREN-OFFICIAL]

Preserve the earlier presentation as it existed

A prior-use file needs the product and packaging actually used during the relevant period. Keep dated advertisements, labels and sales material in their original form. Explain where the material circulated and what it showed. A modern recreation of an old bottle should not be presented as historical evidence.

If the design evolved, create a version chronology. Identify which elements remained stable and which changed. This allows a professional to compare the earlier use with the later challenged presentation. Without that distinction, a business can unintentionally rely on evidence of one design while defending a materially different current version.

Document the geographic and commercial scope

Earlier use may have occurred through particular channels or in particular areas. Record the distribution and audience supported by the evidence instead of converting a few advertisements into a nationwide claim. Keep the source, date and circulation context together where available. Unknown coverage should remain unknown.

For internal planning, distinguish the historical activity being defended from proposed expansion. A successful argument about earlier use should not be treated as an automatic licence to enter every new market or adopt every later variation. Ask the adviser to explain the scope of the selected defence before the commercial team relies on it for growth.

Use knowledge evidence carefully

A claim that another party knew of earlier use should be grounded in documents and circumstances that can be assessed. Collect relevant communications, business relationships and procedural material without inventing intent from a similarity alone. Separate what a source records from what the business suspects.

The same approach keeps public communications proportionate. A judgment about a selected assertion of rights does not justify broad allegations against every related registration or entity. Use the exact parties, signs and outcome in a case summary. If a new dispute is being assessed, let the evidence support the characterization rather than starting with a label such as bad faith.

Distinguish the defence from import and record questions

A product may raise prior-use, distribution, import and registration issues at the same time. Give each issue its own question and evidence set. A civil defence does not automatically resolve customs treatment, every reseller’s presentation or the current state of the register. This separation prevents a narrow historical result from becoming a general commercial assurance.

For an existing dispute, collect the oldest reliable use materials, the challenged current presentation and the full procedural papers. For a new brand, prepare its own proposed name and goods through the filing route. A new application and a prior-use defence are different projects, and neither can be completed by copying the outcome of this case.

What this case does not prove

• The prior-use result is not a blanket parallel-import rule.
• The civil retrial did not automatically cancel every 双飞人 registration.
• Earlier use does not automatically authorize unlimited geographic, goods or design expansion.

What your business should check

Related guides and next action

• Understand goods and similar groups
• Separate the routes for an existing conflict
• Read registration fields without inferring a litigation outcome

New-filing guidance concerns your own proposed mark. Existing disputes and transfers need a separate scope and engagement; no outcome, price or deadline extension is promised by this article. Contract work has its own scope and is not included in the filing Free Check.