Crypto trademarks are a no-go zone in China. In line with the nation’s prohibitions on cryptos, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) is not ready to register trademarks that define and describe crypto goods and services. Brands in the crypto industry need to be mindful of this reality when they are crafting brand and intellectual property rights protection strategies for China.
China banned cryptos in 2021. Subsequently, applications to register trademarks that describe the crypto goods and services are being rejected by CNIPA. Looking at it, the rejections would seem to be continuous with China’s Trademark Law. Article 10(i)(7) bans the registration of trademarks “detrimental to socialist morality or customs, or having other unhealthy influences.”
Notably, nonetheless, CNIPA does not always cite Article 10(i)(7) when rejecting cryptocurrency trademark applications. In the incident of one application rejected on both cryptocurrency and descriptive grounds, CNIPA never cited Article 10(i)(7), but it did cite the Trademark Law’s ban against descriptive marks.
Notably, we have seen incidents where CNIPA just cites the procedural sections of the Trademark Law.
It is highly likely that CNIPA, or at least some of its examiners, do not view crypto trademarks as inherently violative of Article 10(i)(7), and instead apply a standalone ban against cryptocurrency. Maybe conscious of the fact that at some point the authorities might decide to take a softer stand on crypto, CNIPA may not want to go so far as to label it detrimental.
CNIPA will at times cite Article 10(i)(7), but in the incidents that we have seen so far, the application has also been rejected on deceptiveness grounds – and it may be that which triggers the Article 10(i)(7) concern.
With that said, the experience in the public industry taught us not to overanalyze the actions of all the bureaucratic actors. The bottom line is that the trademark is not going to get registered, irrespective of how many and which Trademark Law articles are cited. As Deng Xiaoping said:
“No matter if it is a white cat or a black cat; as long as it can catch mice, it is a good cat.”
With crypto brands already aware of the landscape, they have to guarantee that their goods and services descriptions are drafted in a manner that makes them likely to pass muster for a China trademark. For one, it means avoiding terms like ‘cryptocurrency’.
Buy Bitcoin NowFor clarity purposes, the idea here is not to try to pull the wool over CNIPA’s eyes. Instead, it is to avoid the situations where Web3 technology and services that have applications that extend beyond crypto are defined too narrowly, in a manner that deprives the brand of trademark protection.
In that sense, the brands need to be specifically careful with Madrid applications. One of the benefits of national applications (those filed directly with CNIPA) is that they let trademark owners to design their applications to China’s particular needs. Avoiding China-particular limitations on crypto trademarks is a textbook example of a situation where a brand would want to do that.
Needless to say, if China’s prohibition on crypto stands, no one needs to be getting into that business in China. Brands in the general Web3 space, on the flip side, should take care to guarantee that references to crypto do not jeopardize the protection of the trademarks that also (or exclusively) describe the goods and services that are not related to cryptocurrency.
