Wang Zeng International Limited ("WZI") and Bing Bing Foods Limited ("BBF") are both UK companies importing and supplying fruit and vegetables of Chinese and Asian origin.   

WZI holds four UK registered trade marks: "Mountain Pear" and the respective Chinese characters (山梨 - a series filed December 2019, covering Class 31 fresh fruit) and "Yu Lu Fragrant Pear" and the respective Chinese Characters (玉露香梨 - a series filed July 2021, covering Class 31 raw/fresh fruit and Class 35 retail services relating to fruit). 

BBF admitted importing, offering for sale and stocking fruit products under signs identical to WZI's registered trade marks, without WZI's consent.

The case for infringement appeared clear cut and the main substance of the case related to the counterclaims filed by the defendants. They challenged whether the marks were truly distinctive, whether they had become generic in the trade, and whether WZI had filed them in bad faith. 

The descriptiveness and genericism arguments: Potentially stronger than they appeared

The defendants' core descriptiveness and genericism arguments appeared to have merit on the facts, but they were undermined by the quality of the evidence put before the court.

On descriptiveness, there was no credible evidence that at the relevant date "Mountain Pear" was customary in the language for the goods for which the marks were registered, despite the products being pears grown in the mountains.  

There was also no evidence of sales of any variety of pear sold under the name "Yu Lu Fragrant Pear" in the UK before the relevant filing date that would have caused the average consumer to recognise it as a pear variety name. 

The genericism case suffered in a similar manner. The defendants relied on WZI's own invoices using the mark names in product description fields, shelf labels and receipts from a Chinese supermarket named Wing Yip, communications with a customer and screenshots from UK-facing websites. Notably, the Chinese-language website articles published outside the jurisdiction were disregarded because the defendants provided no evidence of their readership in the UK nor relevance as to how the marks would be perceived by the average consumer.  

These evidential deficiencies could have easily been identified and addressed in the preparation of the defence. Trade evidence from within the UK, from the right time period, framed around the correct legal test, could have presented the court with a very different picture.

Bad faith: A promising argument poorly executed

The defendants argued that WZI had applied for its marks in bad faith, seeking to establish an illegitimate monopoly over the importation of generic pear varieties.  Given WZI's apparent portfolio of pear-related trade marks, the "pattern of monopolisation" argument had the makings of a credible case, but again it was inadequately evidenced and inadequately pressed.

Other trade marks relied on as a "pattern" (SNOW PEAR and RED FRAGRANCE) were registered by the UKIPO and therefore presumed valid, meaning they could not be used as evidence of a pattern of illegitimate monopolisation.  Two applications for CENTURY PEAR and YA PEAR were refused, but the defendants did not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim and failed to cross-examine the claimant's witness on this point. 

The failure to cross-examine on a central branch of the bad faith argument is significant. Mr Zeng Wang's unchallenged evidence was that when the applications were made, he did not consider they would be perceived as generic varieties of pear in the UK.  With this evidence going unchallenged, it was hard for the court to find that there was the necessary intentionality required to make out bad faith.  

Personal liability: A risk Mr Bingtao Wang may not have appreciated

The decision is also notable for being the first decision since the Supreme Court decision in Ahmed to find personal liability.  Mr Bingtao Wang, sole director of the First Defendant, knew of the marks and WZI's objections by at least 12 November 2024, having referred to the marks as "trade marks you have registered" in WeChat communications, and stated they would continue to sell the products "even if you win the case."  

As the sole director and sole shareholder of BBF, who made all key decisions as its sole controlling mind, he was held to have directed, procured and authorised the infringing acts, rendering him personally liable alongside the company.

Summary and key takeaways

This case is ultimately less a story about trade mark law than it is a cautionary tale about the consequences of appearing as a litigant in person. The defendants entered proceedings with at least three potentially arguable counterclaims, but each was undone not by the strength of the claimant’s case, but by the defendants’ own evidential and procedural failures. The key takeaways are threefold:

1. Evidence must be targeted, timely and jurisdiction-specific. Generic assertions and out-of-jurisdiction evidence will not suffice. A successful challenge to the validity of a registered trade mark requires precisely framed evidence which is from the right market, the right time period, and directed at the correct legal test. The defendants had the foundations to build a strong case; they simply lacked the expertise to deploy it effectively.
2. Cross-examination is not optional. The failure to challenge the claimant’s evidence on bad faith was decisive. Courts cannot make findings of fact against a witness whose evidence has not been tested.
3. Personal liability is a real and present risk for controlling directors. The finding of personal liability for the sole director of BBF serves as a stark reminder that the corporate veil affords no protection where a director has directed or procured infringing acts with knowledge of the relevant rights. 

For any business facing trade mark proceedings, this case demonstrates the importance of obtaining early, specialist legal advice. The costs of inadequate representation will almost always exceed the costs of getting it right from the outset.