How CNIPA Decides Trademark Similarity: What the DAGENHAS Case Teaches Foreign Applicants

In our previous article on our client - DAGENHAS v. HÄAGEN-DAZS case, we saw how a well-known global brand lost an opposition in China because CNIPA did not find the marks confusingly similar. That result surprised many foreign brands, but it is a very useful example of how trademark similarity is actually assessed in China.For foreign applicants, this is not just a technical issue. It goes to the heart of how trademark rights are built and defended in China. CNIPA does not decide similarity based on fame alone. Instead, it looks at the marks in context and asks whether they are likely to confuse the relevant public.

Why the DAGENHAS case matters

The DAGENHAS case is important because it shows the difference between brand recognition and legal similarity. Häagen-Dazs is a highly recognizable international brand, but that did not automatically mean the later filed mark would be refused. CNIPA still had to apply its own similarity analysis.

That is where many foreign applicants make a mistake. They assume that a famous brand will always block a similar-looking filing. In practice, CNIPA looks more closely at the actual mark, the goods involved, and the overall consumer impression.

CNIPA’s practical approach to similarity

A trademark similarity analysis in China can be understood through three core steps.

1. Compare the marks

The first step is to compare the marks themselves. CNIPA looks at whether the signs are similar in appearance, sound, and structure when viewed as a whole.

This includes the arrangement of letters, the length of the mark, the order of characters, design features, and the overall visual composition. For device marks or combination marks, the graphic element also plays an important role.

In the DAGENHAS case, CNIPA found that the marks were visually different enough to avoid confusion. This is a useful reminder that similarity is not based on a quick first impression alone. CNIPA usually evaluates the entire mark rather than focusing on just one part of it.

2. Compare the goods or services

The second step is to compare the goods or services involved. Even if two marks look somewhat similar, the risk of confusion may be lower if they are used on different types of goods or services.

CNIPA considers whether the goods or services are related, whether they are likely to reach the same consumers, and whether they may come from the same source in the eyes of the public.

In the DAGENHAS case, the goods were also an important part of the analysis. Similarity is always assessed in connection with the relevant product or service category, not in isolation.

3. Consider the overall likelihood of confusion

The third and often most important step is to consider the overall likelihood of confusion. CNIPA asks whether ordinary consumers are likely to believe that the two marks come from the same source, or from economically related businesses.

This test is broader than just comparing appearance or sound. It also takes into account the overall commercial impression, consumer attention, market context, and the relationship between the marks and the goods or services.

That is why similarity is not a mechanical formula. Two marks may share some letters or sounds, but if the goods are different and the overall impression is distinct, CNIPA may still allow the later filing. That was the key point in the DAGENHAS case.

What foreign applicants should learn from DAGENHAS

The DAGENHAS case gives foreign applicants three practical lessons.

1. fame is not enough

A globally famous brand may still lose if the marks are not legally confusing under CNIPA’s standards.

2. early filing matters

If you delay registration, you may lose the chance to block later applicants before they secure a filing position.

3. defensive planning is essential

A strong China trademark strategy should include not only the core mark, but also likely variants, Chinese versions, and adjacent classes.

These are not theoretical points. They are the exact kinds of issues that often decide whether a foreign brand can protect its position in China.

Why foreign brands should be proactive

China’s trademark system rewards preparation. Once a third party files a mark that looks similar, the brand owner may have to move into a reactive position through opposition or invalidation.That process can be expensive, time-consuming, and uncertain. Even strong evidence does not guarantee success if the similarity threshold is not met. For that reason, proactive filing is usually far more effective than waiting for a conflict to appear.

If you are preparing to register a trademark in China, or if you are concerned about a possible conflict with an existing mark, we can help. Our team supports foreign brands with clearance searches, filing strategy, opposition response, and other China trademark protection services.

How We Can Help

As a professional platform operated by Gomax Group, TMRegisterChina specializes in China trademark registration and intellectual property protection services for foreign brands and overseas enterprises.

For trademark filing and protection cases in China, we provide practical support throughout the entire process, including:

· Trademark registration applications with CNIPA

· Trademark clearance searches and risk assessments

· Trademark opposition and invalidation proceedings

· Defensive trademark registration strategies

· Compliance guidance for brand owners and applicants

Our experienced local trademark attorneys and IP specialists can help simplify the registration process, reduce compliance risks, and ensure a smooth brand entry into the Chinese market.

Helping you enter and operate in China with confidence and efficiency — Gomax, your local reliable agency for China business.

CONTACT US