The A2 Milk Company Limited is the registrant of the “A2” trademark with reg. no. 14013718, designated on “milk; milk products” and other goods. Nestlé Products Co., Ltd. (“Nestlé”) filed an invalidation request claiming that the “A2” mark constitutes generic name on milk products, milk powder, and other goods. When used on milk and other goods, it directly expresses the nutritional content and other characteristics of the designated goods and lacks the distinctive features that a trademark should have. At the same time, its registration may easily cause confusion to the public regarding the quality and origin of the goods.
The court found that “A2” is not an inherent vocabulary and has no specific meaning. It is not directly related to the characteristics or quality of the goods such as “milk; milk products” used in the disputed trademark. The evidence cannot prove when using “A2” on its approved goods such as “milk; milk products” the public can naturally associate it with “vitamin A2” or “A2β-casein” based on their general understanding, and cause confusion with the disputed trademark.
As to whether the disputed trademark is a generic name, the determination falls on the factual status on the date of trademark application. Nestlé failed to submit evidence to prove that relevant professional reference books and dictionaries have listed “A2” as the product name of “milk; milk products” and other goods. Most of the evidence submitted by Nestlé such as the publicity and usage of its peers, the publicity of video websites, online reports, and journal articles were later than the application date or the registration of the disputed trademark. The evidence submitted by Nestlé before the filing date of the disputed trademark mainly includes relevant journal articles and some media reports, but the content is mainly research and introduction of A2β-casein and does not directly reflect the association between “A2” and “milk; milk products” and other goods. It also was not sufficient to reflect the relevant public's awareness of “milk; milk products” and other goods across the country. Therefore, the evidence on record submitted by Nestlé is not enough to prove that “A2” has been generally recognized as a generic name that can refer to “milk; milk products” and other goods by the relevant public on the application date of the disputed trademark and at the time of approval of registration.
Regarding Nestlé's claim that the disputed trademark is a simple combination of letters and numbers and does not have inherent distinctiveness, the court found that “A2” is not a fixed combination of letters and numbers, has no inherent meaning, and is identifiable in itself. The disputed trademark “A2” has no direct or fixed association with the “milk; milk products” and other goods approved for use. According to the evidence on record submitted by The A2 Milk Company Limited, its “A2” brand has been used among the relevant public in China after long-term publicity. It has a certain degree of popularity and influence and has the distinctive characteristics that a trademark should have.
In summary, the court upheld the registration of the disputed trademark.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.