KOKIA Survived NOKIA: What China's Supreme Court Just Ruled Means Hope for Your 'Similar' Mark

On September 16, 2026, China's Supreme People's Court issued a retrial judgment that pulled a registered trademark out of the invalidation pile and sent the file back to CNIPA. The mark was KOKIA. The company trying to kill it was Nokia. The outcome matters far more to a foreign brand owner than the headlines suggested.

The decision, (2026) Zui Gao Fa Xing Zai No. 352, has been read in the trade press as a small-brand-beats-giant story. That reading is wrong, and it is the wrong lesson to carry into portfolio planning. What the court actually did was more technical and more useful: it refused to let a famous name substitute for evidence of use on the specific goods in dispute, and it put a thumb on the scale in favor of marks that have been used continuously for years.

Both halves of that ruling matter to a foreign brand. One half hands you a defense you may not know you have. The other tells you exactly what to build before you ever need it.

Quick answer: China's Supreme Court ruled on September 16, 2026 that KOKIA is not confusingly similar to NOKIA in Class 25, overturning CNIPA's invalidation ruling and the two court decisions that had upheld it. The court relied on objective differences in pronunciation, typeface and letter spacing, on the KOKIA owner's years of actual use, and on Nokia's failure to prove use of its own cited marks on those goods. It also held that invalidating a long-used registered mark requires greater caution.

The Case, Stripped to Its Facts

The dispute is narrow, which is exactly why it is instructive.

The KOKIA mark, registration number 41858381, was filed on October 24, 2019 and registered on August 21, 2020 in Class 25, covering trousers, outerwear and related apparel. Nokia held two earlier Class 25 registrations: number 14506531A, registered November 7, 2016, covering hats, wedding dresses and related items, and number 36565309, registered February 28, 2020, covering clothing and ties.

CNIPA invalidated KOKIA under Articles 30 and 31 of the Trademark Law then in force -- the 2019 version. Article 30 is the same-or-similar provision; Article 31 governs priority between competing filings. In the 2026 revision, effective January 1, 2027, the same-or-similar rule sits in Article 20. The substance did not change. The numbering did. How CNIPA decides what counts as similar goods in the first place is set out in how China's subclass system works.

Beijing Intellectual Property Court upheld the invalidation. Beijing High People's Court upheld it again. KOKIA's owner took the case to the Supreme People's Court, which accepted the retrial on April 23, 2026 and heard it on September 1, 2026.

The retrial judgment is final.

The Three Reasons That Decided It

1. The marks are objectively different, and the court treated that as a question of fact

KOKIA and NOKIA differ by one letter in the leading position. That is the kind of difference that usually loses, because examiners and courts often reason that visual and phonetic overlap dominates a consumer's first impression.

The Supreme People's Court went the other way. It found that the two marks differ in pronunciation, in typeface, and in the spacing between letters. Individually those are small observations. Together they gave the court a factual basis for saying the marks are not confusingly similar, rather than simply asserting that they are different enough.

The lesson is not that one letter is safe. It is that the comparison is decided on the record. A brand that wants to argue distinctness has to put something concrete in front of the examiner -- how the mark sounds, how it is set, how it appears on a shelf. The grounds that sink most foreign applications long before any court sees them are collected in why China rejects foreign trademarks.

2. KOKIA had been used, and the court counted the years

The KOKIA owner was established in 2015 and had been selling under the mark on Taobao since 2017. By the time of the retrial that is roughly nine years of continuous commercial use on the goods covered by the registration.

The court treated that record as material to the confusion analysis. A mark that has been in the market for years, with a real customer base attached to it, does not present the same risk profile as a mark that has just been filed. Long use had built up source-identification in its own right.

3. Nokia did not prove use of its own cited marks on those goods

This is the sharpest part of the judgment, and the part most foreign brands should read twice.

Nokia's two cited registrations were both in Class 25. The Supreme People's Court noted that Nokia had not submitted evidence showing actual use of those two marks on the goods specified in those registrations. Without that evidence, the court declined to infer a likelihood of confusion from Nokia's general reputation as a brand.

That is a meaningful statement of Chinese practice. Fame in one product category does not convert automatically into protection in another, and a well-known name is not a substitute for a use record on the goods actually at issue. The mirror-image tool -- cancelling a registered mark that is genuinely not in use -- is covered in China's three-year non-use cancellation route.

What the Court Said About Long-Used Marks

The judgment closes with a principle rather than a finding: invalidating a registered trademark that has been continuously used for many years should be approached with greater caution.

Read carefully, that is not a rule that protects small brands. It is a rule that protects use. Any brand, large or small, that has spent years building a mark in the Chinese market can point to it. Any brand that has registered a mark and left it sitting on a shelf cannot.

This connects directly to where Chinese trademark law is heading. The 2026 revision moves the system from rewarding registration toward rewarding actual use. Article 2 now states that use includes use through the internet and other information networks. Article 19 denies registration to applications filed without intent to use and clearly beyond normal business needs. Article 57 lets CNIPA cancel a mark that has gone unused for three consecutive years without waiting for a third party to complain. Article 78 codifies a non-use defense in damages claims. The full set of changes landing on January 1, 2027 is collected in the 2027 compliance checklist, and the operational deadlines are mapped in the eight key changes to China's trademark law.

KOKIA v. Nokia was decided under the old law. It reads like a preview of the new one.

The Counter-Argument, and Why It Still Matters

There is a reading of this case that a foreign brand owner should resist. It goes: a famous company lost, so similarity risk is lower than the lawyers say.

That reading is dangerous for three reasons.

First, this was a retrial. Two Chinese courts and the administrative office all decided the other way. A brand cannot plan on being the exception.

Second, the outcome depended on a use record that existed because the KOKIA owner had been selling since 2017. A brand filing a defensive mark today, with no Chinese sales, has none of that.

Third, the case turned partly on the weakness of the other side's evidence. Nokia had registered two marks in Class 25 and had not used them there. Most aggressive opposers are better prepared than that, and the routes they use to clear a conflicting filing are set out in how bad-faith registrations in China are defended.

So the correct takeaway is not that similar marks are safe. It is that the record decides, and use is the strongest part of the record.

What a Foreign Brand Should Do Differently After This Ruling

Document use on the goods, not on the brand. A brand that sells headphones and registers in Class 9 should be able to show Class 9 sales, listings and invoices. General brand awareness is a different thing, and this judgment says so explicitly.

Keep the evidence pointed at the Chinese public. Chinese use evidence is judged on whether it reached the relevant Chinese audience. A European campaign with no Chinese exposure is weak material.

Do not rely on fame alone when opposing or invalidating. If a brand is trying to clear a similar mark out of the register, the file needs more than a reputation argument. It needs use on the goods.

Clear the mark before you file, not after. The conflicts that end up in an invalidation are usually visible years earlier in the register. How to search the CNIPA trademark database covers the free tools and the two checks most foreign brands skip.

Keep registration details current. A use file that points at a superseded registration number, or at a mark whose ownership has changed without recordal, is a liability. See how China trademark assignment and transfer works for the mechanics.

Treat long use as an asset worth protecting. If a brand has used a mark in China for years, that history belongs in the file before any dispute starts, not after.

What It Costs to Run the Other Route

For brands on the offensive side, an invalidation is a real budget item, not a letter.

Running an invalidation that fails, as Nokia's did here after two court wins, is expensive in a way that never appears in the budget: the mark stays registered, the relationship with the Chinese market gets harder, and the file is now public.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What did China's Supreme Court actually decide in KOKIA v. Nokia?

On September 16, 2026, the Supreme People's Court held that KOKIA is not confusingly similar to NOKIA in Class 25. It revoked the Beijing High People's Court judgment, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court judgment and CNIPA's invalidation ruling, and ordered CNIPA to issue a new decision. The retrial judgment is final.

2. Does this mean a mark similar to a famous brand can now be registered in China?

No. The outcome turned on facts specific to this case: objective differences in pronunciation, typeface and letter spacing; roughly nine years of documented use by the KOKIA owner; and Nokia's failure to prove use of its own cited marks on the relevant goods. Remove any one of those and the result could differ.

3. Why did CNIPA invalidate KOKIA in the first place?

CNIPA applied Articles 30 and 31 of the Trademark Law then in force -- the 2019 version. Article 30 bars registration of marks identical or similar to an earlier registered or preliminarily approved mark on identical or similar goods; Article 31 governs priority between competing applications. In the 2026 revision effective January 1, 2027, the same-or-similar rule is Article 20.

4. Does a famous foreign brand automatically block similar marks in China?

No, and this case makes the point directly. Nokia's general reputation was not enough. The court required evidence that Nokia had actually used its cited Class 25 marks on the goods in question. Fame without a use record on the specific goods is a weak foundation for an invalidation.

5. What is the case number, and how can it be verified?

The judgment is (2026) Zui Gao Fa Xing Zai No. 352, issued September 16, 2026 by the Supreme People's Court. Retrial judgments can be checked through the Supreme People's Court Intellectual Property Court and China Judgments Online.

6. How long does a China trademark invalidation take, and what does it cost?

The official fee is RMB 675 per class for electronic filing (about USD 100 at the October 2026 reference rate of 6.7180 CNY per USD) or RMB 750 per class on paper (about USD 112). CNIPA must decide within 9 months for absolute grounds and 12 months for relative grounds, each extendable. Either side can then litigate.

7. What is the single most useful thing to take from this ruling?

Build the use file now. Keep dated records showing the mark used on the goods covered by the registration, aimed at the Chinese market. That record was the difference between a dead mark and a live one in this case, and Articles 2 and 78 of the 2027 law make it more important, not less.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme People's Court did not lower the bar for similar marks in China. It raised the bar for the party trying to knock one out.

A brand attacking a similar mark now needs more than a famous name and a registration certificate. It needs use on the goods. A brand defending its own mark now has a concrete argument to make: objective differences plus a long, documented record of use in the Chinese market.

Both of those are things a brand can prepare for years in advance. Neither is something a brand can assemble in the two months before an opposition deadline -- which is now the whole window, as the 2027 opposition playbook sets out.

Sources:

• Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (2026 Revision) -- CNIPA official text
• Supreme People's Court Intellectual Property Court -- published judgments and annual leading IP cases
• CNIPA Trademark Fee Guide -- official fees for invalidation, opposition and review
• CNIPA notice on the draft Trademark Examination Guidelines -- published September 28, 2026