In a commercial ecosystem where "Time-honored Brand" (Laozihao) trade names coexist with registered trademark rights, "sharing a name" does not inevitably lead to "infringement." The key to protecting the exclusive right to use a registered trademark while balancing the prior rights formed through historical heritage lies in the integrity of the evidence chain and a refined judgment of the likelihood of confusion.

The final judgment of the "Wanshouzhai" (万寿斋) case (2024 Hu 73 Min Zhong No. 1671) by the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court provides a clear judicial benchmark through deep exploration of historical archives and analysis of market structures.

I. Case Overview: The Frontal Collision Between Registered Trademarks and Legacy Trade Names

1. Comparison of Rights Bases

·  Plaintiff (Trademark Registrant): A certain Shanghai Food Co., Ltd. In 2017, it acquired the exclusive right to use the graphic and text trademark "Wanshouzhai" (No. 987297, registered in 1997) via assignment, approved for use in Class 30 (dumplings, small steamed buns, etc.). Its business model primarily involves selling pre-packaged food through supermarkets; it operates no physical catering outlets.

· Defendant (Legacy Brand Operator): Shanghai Hongkou District Wanshouzhai Eatery (Operator: Yang). Located at No. 123 Shanyin Road, Hongkou District, Shanghai. Its business model is a catering restaurant (specializing in scallion oil noodles and xiaolongbao), providing dine-in and delivery services, and occasionally offering raw/unprepared bulk food upon consumer request. It uses the "Wanshouzhai" text and variant logos on its signage, decor, and menus.

2. Procedural History

·  First Instance (Hongkou Court): The court verified the historical evolution by ex officio retrieving materials from the Shanghai Municipal Archives and dismissed the plaintiff's claims.

·  Second Instance (Shanghai IP Court): A final judgment was rendered on December 23, 2025, dismissing the appeal and upholding the original verdict.

II. Core Disputes and Judicial Logic

The adjudication path did not stop at "who registered first" but delved into two dimensions: "who used first" and "whether market confusion exists."

(A) "Archeological" Recognition of Prior Rights: The Key Evidence of "Jixiang"

Dispute: Could the defendant prove continuous operation since 1949?

Judicial Insight: The court did not rely solely on the defendant's oral testimony but introduced rigorous archival verification. The court confirmed a key factual connection:

1. Establishing the Starting Point: The shop at No. 123 Shanyin Road used the "Wanshouzhai" trade name as early as 1949 and gradually gained influence in Shanghai.

2. Repairing the Chain (Key Detail): Addressing potential gaps during historical upheavals, the court found that in 1963, the shop's name included the word "Jixiang" (Auspicious), and the shop name later acquired by a subsequent operator, Mr. Hu, also contained "Jixiang." This detail confirmed the inheritance relationship between the two time points.

3. Continuous Accumulation: Through the operations of Mr. Hu, his spouse, and later Yang, the "Wanshouzhai" influence was continuously maintained and gained wide market recognition in Shanghai.

Legal Analysis: The protection of Time-honored Brands is not about "age" but "inheritance." In this case, the combination of archival verification, the "Jixiang" nomenclature bridge, and the succession of business entities formed an irrefutable evidence loop, establishing the defendant’s prior trade name rights against the registered trademark.

(B) "Scenario-based" Isolation of Confusion: Online Delivery is Service, Not Just Sales

Dispute: Does the defendant's use of similar marks on similar food items constitute infringement?

Judicial Insight: The court applied a "Market Interface" stratification analysis under Article 57 of the Trademark Law:

1.  Channel Isolation: The plaintiff targets supermarket retail (pre-packaged); the defendant relies on physical stores and delivery platforms (freshly prepared).

2.  Consumer Decision Differences: The plaintiff corresponds to "grocery stockpiling"; the defendant corresponds to "instant dining."

3.  Definition of "Online Delivery": The court explicitly noted that online delivery is not essentially different from offline catering services, and high rankings/recommendations on platforms are digital projections of offline goodwill. Thus, the prior rights reasonably extend to online scenarios.

Legal Analysis: The court introduced the "Standard of General Attention." Given the long-term coexistence of "legacy catering" and "supermarket pre-packaged food," the relevant public can distinguish the sources. Forcing an infringement ruling would disrupt the established market identification order.

(C) Blocking Unfair Competition: Reasonable Origin vs. "Free-riding"

Dispute: Did the defendant engage in "confusing acts" under Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law?

Judicial Insight:

1. No Subjective Malice: The use was based on a complete historical heritage and self-accumulated reputation, constituting a reasonable origin.

2. No Objective Confusion: Based on the market differentiation mentioned above, the behavior was insufficient to lead to public misidentification.

III. Practical Insights and Strategic Recommendations

1. "3D Due Diligence" Before Trademark Investment

Searching Trademark Office archives is no longer enough. Before acquiring a brand name shared with a "Laozihao":

·  Check physical stores: Are there long-standing legacy shops?

·  Check archives: Look for trade name evolution in local chronicles or gazetteers.

·  Check digital footprints: Review early comments on platforms like Dianping or Meituan for shop longevity.

2. "Evidence Archeology" for Legacy Brand Operators

·   Find connection points: Like the "Jixiang" example, look for names, addresses, or personnel links in historical records of joint ventures or restructurings.

·   Digitalize footprints: Store delivery data, media reports, and awards as evidence of "continuous use."

·   Defensive registration: Apply for trademarks in core classes whenever possible to preserve evidence of use even if registration is denied.

3. Boundary Management of Coexistence

·   Visual differentiation: Trademark owners should upgrade packaging design; legacy brands should emphasize shopfront characteristics.

·   Channel segregation: Avoid "cross-border" encroachment (e.g., a legacy restaurant suddenly mass-producing pre-packaged food for supermarkets).

IV. Conclusion

The "Wanshouzhai" judgment is not just a confirmation of a legacy brand’s historical rights, but a reaffirmation of judicial protection for market order built on good faith. When registered trademarks encounter historical heritage, the judiciary seeks an optimal solution of "respecting history, protecting innovation, and inclusive coexistence."

The "Wanshouzhai" case reveals the complexity of protecting Time-honored Brands. In the era of digital IP management, the Kangxin IP Platform provides full-lifecycle support from prevention to protection. Regarding such name conflicts, our Global Trademark Monitoring allows you to pinpoint overlap risks between trade names and trademarks. Furthermore, through our Evidence Deposit System, enterprises can digitalize and timestamp business evidence, establishing a robust evidence chain for prior rights.

Kangxin IP Platform is committed to transforming complex legal logic into a convenient user experience. Whether it is "mine-sweeping" due diligence or closed-loop brand enforcement, we help enterprises build a resilient IP defense system that respects both historical heritage and modern brand value.