Are names for virtual currencies registrable as trademarks?

有关虚拟货币名称作为商标申请的可注册性研究
Are names for virtual currencies registrable as trademarks?

撰稿人：徐凯、林雅
Co-authors: Kevin Xu, Shirley Lin

自比特币诞生以来，虚拟货币（或称加密货币）近年来已经开始成为世界区块链技术的主流，而一些币种的发行人或命名人，也理所应当地倾向于将自己发行或命名的虚拟货币名称作为商标申请注册并受到保护。目前市面上主流的虚拟货币，如比特币、以太坊（以太币）、莱特币、瑞波币等均已核准注册，注册类别基本集中在36类的金融货币服务等相关领域。尽管如此，笔者经查询后却发现，近一年以来带有“币”文字的商标在相关服务大类上的核准通过率却呈现断崖型下降趋势，而该类型商标申请均以违反《商标法》的绝对理由条款为由而遭到驳回。

Since Bitcoin was created, virtual currency (or cryptocurrency) has gradually become the most popular form of blockchain technology worldwide. Those take to issuing or naming such coins don’t shy from trademarking their inventions. Mainstream currencies including “比特币/ BI TEBI” (Bitcoin), “以太币/ YI TAI BI” (Ether), “莱特币 LAI TE BI” (Litecoin) and “瑞波币/ RUI BO BI” (XRP) are now protected as registered trademarks, mainly in Class 36 on financial and monetary services etc. However, the author noticed a free-fall in the number of approved trademark applications incorporating the word “币/BI” (coin) in the class of services or other related ones over the recent year. The refusals have been made based on the violation of certain absolute prohibitions set forth in the Chinese Trademark Law.

首先，例如“美币”、“欧币”等，易使消费者将其与现实中真实存在的“美元、欧元”等货币产生联想，因此针对这种形式的申请一般会被认为具有“社会不良影响”而驳回注册；另一方面，对于一些虚拟货币，商标局认为因其并非客观存在的货币形式，用作商标使用，易使消费者产生误认，据此予以驳回。对于以真实货币名称申请注册商标被驳回的理由，笔者表示认同；而对于虚拟货币名称申请注册商标被驳回的情形，笔者认为是值得商榷的。

First, there are trademark filings for “美币/ MEIBI”, “欧币/ OU BI” etc. that are deemed likely to be confused with the US dollar (“MEI YUAN”) and Euro (“OU YUAN”) in Chinese, and are thus prone to trigger “adverse social influence”. Besides, the China Trademark Office (CTMO) also found some applications misleading, likely to be perceived as names for circulating fiat money, which they are not. The author agrees with the CTMO on the first scenario but not so much as to names that are not confusingly similar to those of legal tender.

从几年前“比特币”等商标被核准注册，到目前加大对虚拟货币名称的商标申请的审查力度，如此大的反差是由我国近年来对虚拟货币认可度的变化而导致的。由于近几年来虚拟货币交易市场的混乱，出于交易安全、政府监管等方面的考虑，2017年9月起我国多部委发文禁止虚拟货币的买卖交易。从那时起，虚拟货币名称也均被打上了“不合法”的烙印，虚拟货币名称从此与商标无缘。

As opposed to the painless registration of Bitcoin etc. a few years back, examination on such applications has become increasingly rigorous. The stark contrast is contributed by changing attitudes towards cryptocurrencies among the Chinese authorities. In light of the chaos in coin transactions, such dealings are banned by a streak of documents issued by the authorities since September 2017. The attempts to outlaw cryptocurrency trading practices have left a mark that cries “illegal” on the names being used and closed their door to trademark registration.

对于上述情况的产生，笔者认为是审查机关对国家政策的一种误解，究其原因是审查机关并未区分虚拟货币合法性与虚拟货币买卖交易合法性之间的区别。

In the author’s opinion, the shutdown on coin-related trademark registration is due to the misunderstanding of the national policy by trademark administrations which fail to distinguish the legality of virtual currencies from that of their transactions.

如上所述，我国禁止虚拟货币买卖交易，是出于对交易所交易安全、市场监管等方面的实际考虑，但是，否认虚拟货币交易的合法性并不代表我国否认虚拟货币本身的合法性。今年8月，北京市海淀区人民法院审结了我国首起比特币现金争议纠纷案。当事人冯先生在OKCoin币行网（虚拟货币交易所）上购买比特币，在进行比特币现金提取时发现领取失败，经协调未果后，冯先生将北京乐酷达网络科技有限公司诉至法院。海淀区人民法院经审查后表示：“比特币等虚拟商品，属于合同法上的交易对象，具有应当受到法律保护的‘民事利益’，普通人可以合法持有，但应当自行承担相关风险”、“我国现行政策禁止比特币等虚拟商品与法定货币之间的兑换，各金融机构和支付机构不得以比特币为产品或服务定价，不得买卖或作为中央对手买卖比特币”。作为国内首起虚拟货币现金争议案件，海淀区人民法院的判决具有一定的现实指导意义，法院在否定了虚拟货币交易的合法性后，却确认了虚拟货币应当作为民事利益受到法律保护这一事实。

As is discussed above, the restrictions on trading cryptocurrencies are placed to enhance security and regulate the market. However, the coins themselves are not denied of their legality altogether. A revealing example is a trial on the first Bitcoin dispute in China concluded before the Beijing Haidian People’s Court, which found virtual currency transactions illegal but deemed the property rightfully protected as a form of civic interest. The suit was brought by Mr. Feng, a Bitcoin buyer who failed to cash out his purchase via the exchange OK-Coin, so he sued the operator Beijing Lekuda Network Technology Co., Ltd. after no resolution could be reached between the parties. The Court held that, “Virtual commodities such as Bitcoin are transactional subjects for the purpose of the Contract Law and thus shall be legally protected as a ‘civil interest’; although cryptocurrencies are allowed to be held, owners shall take the risks arising therefrom”, “Pursuant to the existing national policy, the exchange between virtual currencies and legal tender is not allowed; financial and payment institutions shall not provide Bitcoin as their product or price their services with it, and shall not trade it directly or as central counterparties”.

综上所述，笔者认为既然虚拟货币可以被认定为一种民事利益，那么它就不应当被认为是“并非客观存在的”，虚拟货币名称当然享有作为商标提出注册申请的基本权利（当然，若申请注册商标的文字本身具备其他非可注册性情形的除外）。至于虚拟货币名称作为商标核准注册后权利人是否对其进行了合法性使用，这是后话，尚有待考察。

In summary, since cryptocurrencies can be a civil interest, it is absurd to deny their “objectivity” and therefore dismiss trademark filings for their names (of course, not when the names are otherwise still not registrable for other reasons). As for whether such cryptocurrency-related trademarks are legally used after registration, it is another subject matter that worth further reviews and discussion, and should not affect the registration procedure itself.

If you would like some more personalized review of the news from us, please kindly let us know by writing to:public.relation@hongfanglaw.com. Thank you.