The copyright is its own original copyright, which is now imitated by entertainment programs such as Japan and South Korea, but the trademark issue was not registered by itself first. Details are as follows: In July 23, Beijing Avenue of Stars Film and Television Production Company (referred to as Starlight Company) applied for the registration of the trademark "Avenue of Stars". Later, Star Company's trademark registration application was approved in the first instance, and CCTV objected to the trademark registration of "Avenue of Stars". After the objection application of CCTV was rejected, the application for reconsideration was rejected again. In the end, CCTV brought the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to court.

CCTV sued that "Avenue of Stars" was a sub-section of the "Unlimited Stars" program which was launched by CCTV in 1999. Later, "Unlimited Stars" was changed to "Avenue of Stars", which had a large audience and belonged to "trademark which was used first and had certain influence", so CCTV had the right to name and trademark the previous program. CCTV also believes that Starlight Company still applied for registration of the trademark when it should have known or already knew the above situation. This kind of behavior belongs to the famous "malicious cybersquatting" of hitchhiking, and requested the court to request the cancellation of the ruling of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to approve the registration of the trademark.

during the trial, the defendant's Trademark Review and Adjudication Board held that although CCTV called "Avenue of Stars" as the name of its program segment a long time ago, it did not provide corresponding evidence. The available evidence shows that this column was launched in 24, and Starlight Company had already carried out the preparation and planning activities of the "Avenue of Stars Performance Competition" in 23. Therefore, it is difficult to determine that Starlight Company's application for registration is subjective and malicious, and CCTV's reason of "prior name right" cannot be established.

The court held that CCTV did not submit any strong evidence that the column of the Avenue of Stars had been broadcast before the trademark application of the Avenue of Stars, and it had certain influence among the relevant public. The broadcast time of "Avenue of Stars" is later than the application date of Starlight Company applying for the trademark of Avenue of Stars. The registration of the trademark of the Avenue of Stars by Starlight Company has not had a negative impact on public interests and public order, nor has it used fraudulent means in registration, and it does not violate the provisions of the Trademark Law. The court decision upheld the ruling of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board.

On October 6th, 211, Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court ruled that CCTV lost the case. A paper verdict drew a semicolon on a case that had been in suspense for several years. This can not help but surprise those who generally believe that CCTV can regain the trademark of "Avenue of Stars" through various relationships.