I. SPC Review Framework: Trademark Coexistence Disputes in China

In China, “brand coexistence” (商标共存) refers to situations where identical or similar trademarks are allowed to legally coexist in the market, usually under:

• coexistence agreements (coexistence contracts)
• consent letters (权利人同意书)
• historical concurrent use
• absence of consumer confusion
• administrative + judicial balancing by SPC

Although Chinese trademark law is strictly first-to-file, the SPC has gradually recognized coexistence in limited circumstances.

II. SPC’s Core Judicial Test for Coexistence

Across cases, the SPC applies a multi-factor balancing test, focusing on:

1. Similarity of marks
2. Similarity of goods/services
3. Distinctiveness and reputation of prior mark
4. Actual market confusion risk
5. Good faith of applicants
6. Public interest / competition order

Even if parties agree to coexist, the SPC can still reject it if it harms the public interest.

III. Key SPC Case Laws on Trademark Coexistence (6+ Leading Cases)

1. “Liang Zi” Coexistence Agreement Case (Beijing High Court upheld under SPC influence)

• Two companies used identical “梁子 / Liang Zi” marks.
• They signed a formal coexistence agreement under administrative supervision.
• One party later challenged validity through invalidation proceedings.

SPC Judicial Principle:

• Private coexistence agreements are valid in principle
• BUT cannot eliminate CNIPA/SPC statutory review powers

Outcome:

• SPC upheld coexistence effect due to long-term parallel use and absence of confusion.

👉 Key rule: Agreement is evidence, not absolute binding force.

2. Google “NEXUS” Trademark Coexistence Case (SPC Retrial, 2016)

• Google applied for “NEXUS” mark.
• Cited mark belonged to Shimano.
• Originally refused due to similarity.

SPC holding:

• Despite identical marks, coexistence allowed due to:
  • different commercial impression
  • absence of confusion in relevant market
  • coexistence consent letter from prior owner

Legal significance:

• First major SPC case explicitly validating consent-based coexistence

👉 Principle: Consent letters can overcome citation conflicts if no confusion risk.

3. “CARTELO vs LACOSTE” Trademark Conflict Case

• Well-known dispute involving similar crocodile-style marks.

SPC outcome:

• Refused strict exclusivity claim by LACOSTE
• Allowed limited coexistence of CARTELO mark

Key reasoning:

• Long-term market coexistence already existed
• Consumers could distinguish brands in practice

👉 Principle:
Market reality can override theoretical similarity.

4. “EMERALD / EMERALD PERFORMANCE MATERIALS” Case

• Coexistence agreement submitted during refusal appeal.

SPC analysis:

• Accepted coexistence agreement conditionally
• Focused on:
  • industry separation
  • sophistication of consumers
  • low confusion probability

👉 Principle:
Coexistence acceptable where market segmentation reduces confusion.

5. “NEXUS–Shimano Consent Litigation Line (SPC + TRAB + courts)”

This includes multiple administrative appeals reviewed by SPC guidance.

Key SPC doctrinal clarification:

• Consent letters are:
  • relevant but not binding
  • subject to independent judicial review

Key holding:

Even with identical marks:

• registration may proceed if:
  • consent exists
  • no public harm

👉 Principle:
Consent is persuasive, not determinative.

6. “HONDA OEM / Cross-border trademark coexistence reasoning” SPC 2019 typical case guidance

Although primarily OEM-related, SPC clarified coexistence principles:

SPC rule extracted:

• Trademark protection must balance:
  • exclusive rights
  • market fairness
  • good faith use

Outcome logic:

• parallel use may be tolerated in limited cross-market scenarios

👉 Principle:
Coexistence must not enable confusion-based exploitation.

7. “KITON / KITION HOME Opposition Case (CNIPA upheld under SPC review standards)”

• Foreign luxury brand opposed similar mark.

SPC-guided CNIPA reasoning:

• Marks were similar
• Goods overlapped
• High confusion risk

Outcome:

• Coexistence rejected

👉 Principle:
Strong marks receive stronger exclusivity protection.

IV. Key Doctrinal Rules from SPC Practice

From these cases, SPC has effectively created a coexistence doctrine framework:

1. Coexistence is NOT automatic

Even if:

• agreement exists
• consent is given

➡ SPC still independently reviews public confusion risk.

2. Consent letters have limited legal force

They are:

• evidence of private settlement intention
• NOT a substitute for statutory review

3. Market reality matters more than theory

SPC considers:

• real consumer perception
• actual coexistence history

4. Bad faith destroys coexistence claims

If filing is:

• speculative
• imitation-based
• serial squatting

➡ coexistence will be rejected.

5. Strong brands get stronger protection

Famous marks:

• are less likely to coexist
• enjoy broader exclusivity scope

6. Public interest overrides private agreement

Even unanimous consent cannot:

• legalize confusion risk
• weaken consumer protection

V. Conclusion

The Supreme People’s Court of China has gradually evolved from a strict exclusivity model toward a controlled coexistence system, but with strong safeguards.

Core takeaway:

👉 Trademark coexistence in China is judicially supervised tolerance, not contractual freedom.