According to the relevant provisions in the Regulations of Beijing Municipality for Countering Unfair Competition, Xicheng AIC Branch of Beijing AIC recently investigated and punished Peking March Intellectual Property Advisory Co., Ltd, a company that pretended to the agency appointed by Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (CTMO), for its misleading advertisements.

　　During the investigation, Xicheng AIC Branch discovered that in order to attract more business, Peking March Intellectual Property Advisory Co., Ltd claimed itself to be “the agency appointed by CTMO” and printed these words on its Notice of Acceptance, Application for Trademark Attorney Services, Letter about Trademark Consulting Services for Preliminary Examined Trademarks and other self-made documents. Moreover, the company advertized itself as the agency appointed by CTMO on its company website (www.chinamarch.com) as well as the website of China Trademark Statistics Center (www.chinatmdc.net). After the verification, Xicheng AIC Branch confirmed that the company involved was not an appointed agency of CTMO. Peking March Intellectual Property Advisory Co., Ltd was ordered to stop the above illegal acts and remove the influence, and was fined RMB 200,000 by Xicheng AIC Branch in accordance with the relevant provisions in Regulations of Beijing Municipality for Countering Unfair Competition.

　　In recent years, it becomes increasingly common in many areas for trademark agents to attract business by advertising themselves as “the agency appointed by CTMO”. In fact, since the State Council distributed the “Decision on Canceling the Second Group of Projects Subject to Administrative Examination and Approval and Changing the Management Method of a Group of Projects Subject to Administrative Examination and Approval” (No. 5 [2003] of the State Council) and cancelled the examination and approval of trademark agency offices and the check and administrative examination and approval of the trademark agent qualifications in 2003, CTMO has no longer appointed any trademark agents. Therefore, this case can give a reference to AICs at various levels for investigating similar cases.