Identify the real issue through production and export arrangements
TATUUM arranged production through Chinese suppliers for products sold overseas. After third parties applied for and registered the brand’s marks in China, disputes extended to OEM production and exports. Liangma’s trademark team separately reviewed the designated goods, procedural progress and evidence paths for Class 25 trademark No. 14227428 and Class 18 trademark No. 17254873.
For such a brand, overseas stores, foreign trademarks and brand history explain the business background. Chinese factory orders, supplier dealings, people who previously encountered the brand and the other party’s submissions explain how the dispute arose and how the participants connect. Linking the two groups brings the brand background into the specific Chinese trademark dispute.
Class 25: connect use evidence with the mark, goods, period and transaction
For trademark No. 14227428, the team examined the other party’s authorisations, purchase contracts and transfer screenshots through cancellation and review proceedings. It considered whether the materials concerned the disputed mark, whether the goods fell within the review, whether transactions occurred in the relevant period, and whether contracts, payments and actual performance corroborated one another.
A purchase contract can record a transaction arrangement but needs to be read alongside performance records. A transfer screenshot can show funds moving without necessarily identifying the mark used or goods sold. The team examined these connections and addressed the evidential weight of the collection as a whole. The Class 25 outcome concerned registration for the goods under review.
Class 18: bring scattered party information into one factual chain
For trademark No. 17254873, the team cross-checked people and companies identified during cancellation against company personnel relationships, trademark assignments and licensing records. The investigation asked how companies connected, what roles individuals played and how the mark changed hands.
The invalidation evidence also covered brand history, worldwide rights, Chinese supply-chain cooperation and earlier judicial protection records. Chinese OEM cooperation records provided a connecting link between the overseas brand’s history and people with actual exposure to it, including manufacturing personnel and import-export traders. The argument addressed this case’s circumstances rather than relying on overseas reputation as a substitute for evidence in Chinese proceedings.
For overseas brands: organise by mark rather than filling one folder
If a dispute is already affecting factory cooperation, initial materials can be divided into three groups: your own trademark and brand-rights records; the other party’s marks, notices or complaints; and Chinese supply-chain contracts, orders and communications. Link each item to a specific mark, goods and date, and explain whether production, exports or later market entry is currently affected.
Liangma can then review each mark’s proceedings, available evidence and priorities before discussing cancellation, invalidation, dispute responses or portfolio work separately. Resolving the disputed mark and arranging the brand’s own later applications may connect, but remain distinct tasks.