When mentioning “Mr. Bear”, many will think of survival in a dreadful environment, having to eat bugs and seeking shelter in the wild.  Yes, this “Mr. Bear” is the lead of the famous TV show, Man. vs. Wild.

Bear Grylls’ popularity surged in mainland China after China Central Television broadcast this TV show. However, as Bear Grylls became famous, his name was filed or registered as trademark by other parties. In this case study, we will analyze the strategies of protecting the name rights of Bear Grylls from the following opposition case. 

Abstract

Kangxin Partners, P.C., acting on behalf of BEAR GRYLLS VENTURES LLP (“the plaintiff” hereunder), filed an opposition against the trademark (No. 13698972) (“the opposed mark” hereunder) on November 8, 2016.  In the opposition, we mainly argued based on the following facts - 1) the plaintiff’s right to file the opposition, 2) the connection between the plaintiff and the opposed mark, 3) high reputation of Mr. Bear Grylls, 4）the registration of the opposed mark will damage the interests of both the plaintiff and Mr. Bear Grylls. In addition, we also cited other prior cases’ decisions as evidence. After examination, the CTMO issued the decision that the opposed mark should not be approved for registration.

Background

As a man standing on the top of the food chain, Mr. Bear Grylls is a famous adventurer, writer and television presenter. He is widely known for his TV show Man vs. Wild. In China, his fans call him “Bear” or “Mr. Bear”. He established his own namesake company “BEAR GRYLLS VENTURES LLP” and brand, which is well-known among consumers through media promotion. Kangxin Partners, P.C., acting on behalf of BEAR GRYLLS VENTURES LLP, filed an opposition against the trademark  (No. 13698972) on November 8, 2016, mainly arguing that the application of opposed mark infringes the name right of Mr. Bear Grylls.

Below are details of the opposed mark:

Process 

We filed the opposition on November 8, 2016 and mainly argued that:

1.    The plaintiff is qualified to file the opposition. In this case, the plaintiff, “BEAR GRYLLS VENTURES LLP”, is founded by Mr. Bear Grylls in his own name, thus it has the right to file the opposition application. To prove this fact, we collected relevant evidence to show that Mr. Bear Grylls is the founder of his namesake company. Thus, the opponent is qualified as the plaintiff to claim the argument.

2.    The opposed mark is identical with the name of Mr. Bear Grylls. The full name of Mr. Bear Grylls is Edward Michael Bear Grylls. In this case, we collected and organized copious amount of evidence to prove that Edward Michael Bear Grylls and “Bear Grylls”, “BG” have a sole and direct connection. They argued that 1) Mr. Bear Grylls established his own namesake brand, which is well-known among consumers through media promotion; 2) Mr. Bear Grylls has registered international marks in his name “Bear Grylls” and “BG” and extended the protection in China before the filing date of opposed mark; 3) Among the public, Edward Michael Bear Grylls is usually known as “Bear Grylls” or “BG”.

3.    Mr. Bear Grylls enjoys high reputation in China. To support this argument, the attorney submitted evidence, including internet search results relating to Mr. Bear Grylls and his brands, promotional materials and photos shown on various magazines, copies of registration certificates of Bear Grylls brands worldwide, screenshot of his programs shown on Chinese television, etc.

4.    Should the opposed mark be registered, it may damage the interests of both the plaintiff and Mr. Bear Grylls. The opposed party rushed to register many trademarks containing the name “Bear Grylls”, violating the good-faith principle. Our attorney gathered relevant evidence proving that the opposed mark was malicious, and that the act will deceive the consumer, thereby potentially causing damage to the name right owner.

5.    Precedent. We also submitted other prior successful decisions to further support our arguments.

Conclusion

On November 22, 2017, the CTMO issued the decision, holding that：

1) Evidence submitted by the plaintiff indicates that the TV program Survival Mission, owned by the founder of the plaintiff, Mr. Bear Grylls, has been put into the Chinese market. 

2) The opposed mark is identical with the name of Mr. Bear Grylls. Without consent, the application of opposed mark filed by the opposing party infringed on the name rights of Mr. Bear Grylls.

Thus, the opposed trademark should be rejected for registration.