If the procuratorial organs discover false evidence clues in the original litigation during the handling of intellectual property administrative litigation supervision cases, they shall carry out investigation and verification work. If the investigation and verification matters involve other provinces and cities, they may entrust the people's procuratorates of other provinces and cities to investigate and verify. If it is found through investigation and verification that the main evidence used by the court to determine the facts based on the effective judgment is forged, it shall be supervised in accordance with the law.

【 Basic Case 】

A certain liquor company in Shandong (hereinafter referred to as the liquor company) applied for registration of trademark number 8018081 "HEHUAXIAQU" (hereinafter referred to as the disputed trademark) on January 22, 2010, and was approved for registration on February 6, 2011. On April 1, 2017, Huizhou Shunmou Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Shunmou Company) filed an application for revocation with the former Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Office) on the grounds that the disputed trademark "not used for three consecutive years" should be revoked. On December 15, 2017, the Trademark Office decided to uphold the disputed trademark. Shun Company is dissatisfied and has applied for a re examination to the former Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board). On July 13, 2018, the original Trademark Review and Adjudication Board issued the Decision on the Revocation and Reexamination of Trademark No. 8018081 "Hehuaxiaqu HEHUAXIAQU" (hereinafter referred to as the "Defended Decision"), with reference to Shangpingzi [2018] No. 126506, stating that the disputed trademark had been used for real and effective commercial purposes on the approved goods between April 17, 2014 and April 16, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the designated period), and it was upheld.

Shun Company is dissatisfied and has filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, requesting the revocation of the sued decision and ordering the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to make a new decision. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court believes that the evidence submitted by a certain liquor company is sufficient to prove its true, public, and legal use of the approved goods during the designated period. Although Shun Company questioned the authenticity of the evidence submitted by a certain liquor company, the evidence submitted by Shun Company was not sufficient to deny the authenticity of the evidence submitted by the liquor company. Therefore, the judgment rejected Shun Company's lawsuit request. Shunmou Company appealed and applied for retrial to the Beijing High People's Court, but was not supported.

Performance of Procuratorial Organs

The prosecutor reviews the copies of the invoices involved in the case.

Shun Company has applied for supervision to the Beijing Municipal People's Procuratorate (hereinafter referred to as the Beijing Procuratorate), claiming that the authenticity of the evidence submitted by a certain liquor company is questionable and insufficient to prove its true, public, and legal use of the approved goods during the designated period. After accepting the case, the procuratorial organs will focus on the following work: firstly, carry out cross regional cooperation to identify false evidence. The two copies of the "Shandong VAT special invoice" stamped with the tax business seal and written with the words "this document is consistent with the original" submitted by a certain liquor company in the first and second trial stages are the core evidence for the court to determine that it has commercially used the disputed trademark. The Beijing Municipal Procuratorate entrusted the Shandong Provincial People's Procuratorate to assist in the investigation and found that the original information on the invoice showed that the product name was not the disputed trademark in this case, and the copy of the invoice showed that the disputed trademark was artificially altered for the purpose of proof. The second is to strengthen substantive examination and accurately identify "trademark use". The core of trademark use in the sense of trademark law is to use trademark logos to indicate the source of goods, so that the relevant public can distinguish between different market entities that provide goods. It should be an open, authentic, and legal use in the process of commercial circulation. The procuratorial organ conducted a comprehensive review of the evidence submitted by a certain liquor company, distinguishing between evidence of production, processing, and other behaviors before the goods entered the circulation field and evidence of sales behavior after the goods entered the circulation field, excluding the evidential validity of self-made evidence and questionable evidence, and thus determining that the evidence in the case is insufficient to prove that the liquor company has truly, legally, and effectively used the disputed trademark during the designated period.

On June 12, 2023, the Beijing Municipal Procuratorate requested the Supreme People's Procuratorate to lodge a protest. The procuratorial organ believes that the evidence provided by a certain liquor company, which includes altered copies of invoices, should not be accepted. The evidence submitted by the company is insufficient to prove that the disputed trademark was truly, openly, and legally used on the approved goods during the designated period. Therefore, the disputed trademark should be revoked. The main evidence for the original judgment to determine the facts is insufficient. On October 7, 2023, the Supreme People's Procuratorate filed a protest with the Supreme People's Court.

On November 21, 2023, the Supreme People's Court issued the (2023) Supreme Court Administrative Ruling No. 3, bringing this case to trial. On August 30, 2024, the Supreme People's Court issued the (2024) Supreme Administrative Judgment No. 28, holding that, considering that some of the evidence submitted by a liquor company in this case is false, some of the evidence is questionable in authenticity, and some of the evidence is self-made evidence, the evidence on record is not enough to prove that a liquor company has used the trademark in dispute for real, legal and effective commercial use on the approved goods within the specified period, and the reason of the protest organ is valid, the judgment of the first instance, the second instance and the sued decision were revoked, and the China National Intellectual Property Administration made a new decision to revoke the retrial. Meanwhile, the Supreme People's Court has punished a certain liquor company for submitting false evidence.

Typical significance

（1） Strictly examine the substantive evidence and leverage the advantages of integrated prosecution. The procuratorial organs adhere to the principles of comprehensive, objective, and substantive examination, fully utilizing methods such as self investigation, directive investigation, and commissioned investigation to conduct a thorough examination of litigation evidence. Based on the full use of the power of investigation and verification, they grasp substantive legal relationships from the complex legal facts. Cross regional collaboration to verify the authenticity of evidence not only effectively saves case resources, but also helps to improve the accuracy of investigation and verification, consolidate the evidence foundation, and enhance the quality and efficiency of supervision by the procuratorial organs.

（2） Strengthen the legal supervision function, maintain trademark management and market competition order. The procuratorial organs supervise the administrative litigation cases of trademark revocation review, timely correct the factual errors caused by the submission of false evidence by the parties, promote the clearance of "zombie trademarks" that have not been actually used for a long time, release trademark resources, and avoid the waste of public resources. This not only maintains the seriousness of the trademark registration system, but also helps to create a fair market competition order and achieve the organic unity of legal and social effects.