A selection of engagements that shows how we work. Client names, industries, and identifying details have been anonymized; timelines and procedures are described in general terms to protect confidentiality.
The situation. A European cosmetics company preparing its China launch found its house mark already registered — by an applicant holding dozens of foreign brand names across unrelated classes. The registration was past its opposition window and blocking both the trademark application and the brand's flagship store application on a major platform.
What we did. We filed an invalidation built on the squatter's filing pattern and the brand's pre-existing reputation reaching China through cross-border e-commerce and media coverage, and paired it with a fresh application timed to claim the space. The registration was declared invalid; the client's own mark registered, and the store opened under its original global name.
The takeaway. The filing-pattern evidence — the squatter's own portfolio — did the heaviest lifting. Squatted marks are rarely isolated; the registry record of a mass filer is often the strongest exhibit against them.
The situation. A US food and beverage company's application was partially refused, citing a prior registration in the key subclass. The cited mark, over a decade old, showed no trace of market presence. The client's launch timetable left no room for a lengthy fight.
What we did. Within the 15-day window we filed a review of refusal, and in parallel a non-use cancellation against the citation together with a backup application. The registrant produced no adequate use evidence; the citation fell, and the client's mark proceeded to registration ahead of the launch date.
The takeaway. The combination is the point: any single route would have been slower or riskier. Running the review, the cancellation, and the backup filing in parallel turned three uncertain paths into one reliable outcome.
The situation. A fast-growing Chinese consumer electronics manufacturer was selling into more than twenty countries with protection in only three, and had already met squatters in two markets. Distributor agreements were outrunning the trademark map.
What we did. We designed a phased program: direct national filings in core enforcement markets, a Madrid international registration blanketing the remaining countries, and recovery actions where squatters had arrived first. Provisional refusals in several designations were answered through our foreign associate network under central coordination from Hangzhou.
The takeaway. Outbound portfolios need sequencing, not just filing: which markets justify direct filings, which are Madrid territory, and which squatters to fight versus outflank. One coordinating counsel keeps the answers consistent.
The situation. An international apparel brand kept finding counterfeits in third-country markets that traced back to Chinese ports — but had no GACC customs recordal and no enforcement footprint in China.
What we did. We recorded the brand's Chinese registrations with the GACC, supplied customs with product-identification training materials, and set up a rapid-response protocol for seizure notices. Ex officio detentions of outbound shipments followed; seizure records supported administrative complaints against the exporters and takedowns of linked online storefronts.
The takeaway. Export-side seizure is China's most underused enforcement tool. Once the recordal and the response playbook exist, each seizure compounds: evidence accumulates, repeat players surface, and upstream sources become actionable.
Send us the outline — the mark, the market, the counterparty, any deadline. We will tell you which route we would take and why.
Discuss Your Matter