## Facts

- Tencent Weishi, a Chinese technology company, obtained a Chinese registered trademark for the name of its smart glasses (spectacles with built-in cameras).
- The Mandarin term “weishi” (微视), translated in the available English summary as meaning “micro shows,” was part of Tencent Weishi’s trademark.
- Beijing Microview New Era Technology Company Ltd. (Beijing Microview), a company focused on high-tech image processing, claimed an earlier trademarked brand name established in 1994.
- Beijing Microview petitioned the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) to invalidate Tencent Weishi’s registered trademark, arguing the later mark was likely to cause public confusion with Beijing Microview’s earlier brand.
- SIPO dismissed Beijing Microview’s invalidation request and maintained the registration.
- Beijing Microview appealed SIPO’s decision to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, seeking judicial review of the administrative action.

## Issues

1. Whether Tencent Weishi’s registered smart-glasses trademark containing “weishi/微视” was likely to cause confusion with Beijing Microview’s earlier trademarked brand name (established in 1994), such that the registration should be invalidated.
2. Whether SIPO’s dismissal of the invalidation petition should be set aside on administrative review by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.

## Decision

- Beijing Microview brought an administrative appeal to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court challenging SIPO’s refusal to invalidate Tencent Weishi’s trademark.
- Based on publicly accessible English summaries, the Beijing IP Court’s final disposition and its detailed reasoning are not reported in open sources.
- Accordingly, this brief is limited to the verified procedural outcome reflected in available materials: SIPO denied invalidation, and Beijing Microview appealed that denial to the Beijing IP Court.

## Legal Principles

- Under China’s trademark system, a party may seek invalidation of a registered trademark on relative grounds by alleging conflict with an earlier mark and a likelihood of consumer confusion.
- China’s trademark authority (referred to in English as SIPO in some materials, associated with the national IP administration) decides trademark invalidation petitions in the first instance.
- Administrative trademark decisions may be challenged through administrative litigation in specialized courts such as the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, which reviews the legality of the agency decision based on the record and applicable trademark standards.

## Conclusion

Beijing Microview New Era Technology Co. v. State Intellectual Property Office is a 2020 Beijing IP Court administrative trademark case in which Beijing Microview challenged SIPO’s denial of its petition to invalidate Tencent Weishi’s registered smart-glasses trademark that included “weishi/微视,” alleging likely consumer confusion with Beijing Microview’s earlier brand established in 1994; open sources confirm the parties, product context, and posture, but do not provide the court’s reported final ruling or rationale.


Beijing Microview New Era Technology Co. v. State Intellectual Property Office, Beijing IP Court (2020)