Things started from two companies, Xiamen Haokang Home Economics Service Co., Ltd. and Fujian Haokang Home Economics Service Co., Ltd., which should start from 215. On April 29, 215, Fujian Haokang signed a three-year authorization agreement with Xiamen Haokang's parent company Haokang (Xiamen) Information Technology Co., Ltd., and Fujian Haokang was authorized to use the brand of "Haokang Home Economics" in Zhangzhou City, Fujian Province.

However, on June 7, 216, Fujian Haokang applied to the Trademark Office for the independent operation of word mark, and was approved for registration on October 7, 217, and was approved for use in five categories of commodities such as disinfectants, decontaminants and baby diapers. Therefore, on January 3, 218, Xiamen Haokang filed a request for invalidation against the trademark Haokang, pointing out that the trademark has already had certain influence and popularity as a trademark of its own enterprise, and the authorized Fujian Haokang applied to the Trademark Office for registration of the trademark is a malicious infringement and should not continue to use the trademark Haokang.

Fujian Haokang argues that "Haokang" is not original by Xiamen Haokang, and it can't produce evidence to prove that the trademark "Haokang" is used on related goods, and the goods and services under the trademarks of the two are also very different, so there is no imitation.

after hearing the case, the original Trademark Review and Adjudication Board held that Xiamen Haokang was earlier than Fujian Haokang in both trademark use and trademark registration, and Fujian Haokang signed an authorization agreement with its parent company after that, fully aware of its business model and other aspects, and registered its trademark during this period, and applied for registration of more than one trademark related to Haokang in multiple categories, using its trademark in the same area violated the principle of good faith and disrupted the normal trademark registration management order, which constituted Article 44 of China's Trademark Law. Therefore, the original Trademark Review and Adjudication Board ruled that it was invalid.

Fujian Haokang further appealed to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court and the Beijing Higher People's Court to reject the ruling of the original Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, and the result remained the same after the court hearing. In the judgment, the Beijing Higher People's Court pointed out that if the trademark registration management procedure is disturbed by other means other than deception, the interests of the public are harmed, the resources of the public are improperly occupied or illegitimate interests are sought, it can be considered that it belongs to the situation that the registration is obtained by "other improper means" as mentioned in the first paragraph of Article 44 of China's Trademark Law.

As a result, Xiamen Haokang finally maintained its trademark ownership, and Fujian Haokang was punished accordingly. Such improper means of trademark registration eventually failed in the registration in accordance with legal procedures, so enterprises should keep in mind whether to register their own original trademarks or not.