A Case Granting Copyright Protection for Miu Miu Has Been Recognised as One of the 2025 Top Ten Typical Opposition Cases

On 18th April 2025, Beijing Trademark Association (BTA) organised the event to promote the 2025 Top Ten Typical Trademark Litigation and Non-litigation Cases.

Through presenting outstanding cases that are representative and influential in the field of trademark protection, BTA aims to provide examples for study and reference. At the same time, BTA seeks to give full play to the guiding role of typical cases, strengthen the protection of trademark rights, and safeguard fair competition in the marketplace.

A case represented by FERRANTE IP on behalf of PRADA S.A. for protection of the trademark “” has been recognised as one of the 2025 Top Ten Typical Opposition Cases.

MIU MIU, which is a valuable brand owned by PRADA S.A., is known to the public together with its creative logo “”. PRADA S.A. filed an opposition action against an application to register the trademark “” for “carpets; mats; wallpaper, etc.” in Class 27, filed by a Chinese individual called “Lin Shasha”.

In the opposition case, PRADA S.A. has achieved cross-class trademark protection for its logo “” based on its prior copyright enjoyed upon the unique font and design. The CNIPA found in favour of PRADA S.A., which did not own prior trademark registrations in Class 27, but has recorded its trademark “” as copyrighted artworks. In the decision, the CNIPA concluded that PRADA S.A. enjoyed prior copyright upon “” as shown by the submitted evidence, that Lin Shasha had opportunities to know “” and did not provide any reasonable explanation on the creation of the opposed trademark, and that the opposed trademark is substantially similar to PRADA S.A.’s copyrighted logo in respect of constituent elements, design style and visual effect. Therefore, the application for the opposed trademark without PRADA S.A.’s authorisation had infringed upon PRADA S.A.’s prior copyright and was not allowed for registration.

The decision is a very important one, as the CNIPA acknowledged the existence of prior copyright protection enjoyed by PRADA S.A. over the logo “”. Given that protection for copyright is not limited to similar goods and services as trademarks, this decision will act as a deterrent to other entities who may, in the future, seek to benefit from registering a trademark copying or imitating renowned companies’ creative trademarks and logos in dissimilar goods and services.

Source: Ferrante IP and Beijing Trademark Association (BTA)