TianNai Technology's Four-Year Trademark Dispute: Court Upholds Invalidity Ruling for "Cnano" Trademark

Securities Times reporter Zang Xiaosong

As a leading domestic carbon nanotube conductive slurry material company, Tiannan Technology (688116) has recently received an important judicial ruling.

The Administrative Litigation Judgment document exclusively obtained by Securities Times·e-Company reporter shows that, in the first instance, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court made its ruling in an administrative dispute case regarding the invalidation declaration request filed by Tiannan Technology against the National Intellectual Property Administration, with Shandong Dachan Nano Materials Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dachan Nano”) as the third party. The court dismissed all of Tiannan Technology’s claims and upheld the National Intellectual Property Administration’s decision to declare invalid the trademark No. 9482440 “Cnano and Figure.”

With the first-instance judgment results released, a new chapter has emerged in the long-running trademark dispute between Tiannan Technology and Dachan Nano. Of note is that after the court issued the relevant ruling on April 1, Tiannan Technology did not disclose the related matter for a long time. On the afternoon of April 7, a person from the company’s securities department told the reporter that it would file an appeal and would disclose developments in a timely manner through an announcement.

Trademark tug-of-war takes a turn

The trademark dispute between Tiannan Technology and Dachan Nano, which has gone through multiple procedures including civil infringement, invalidation declaration, and administrative litigation, has consistently centered on Tiannan Technology’s core trademark, No. 9482440 “Cnano and Figure.”

According to publicly available information, the disputed trademark “Cnano and Figure” was successfully registered on August 21, 2012 by Xin Nano Technology Co., Ltd. The exclusive right term runs until August 20, 2032. It has been approved for use in Class 1 goods, including industrial raw materials such as carbon, graphite for industrial use, and semimetals. Later, the trademark was assigned to Tiannan Technology and has long been used as the company’s core LOGO on the official website, products, packaging, promotional materials, and in overseas intellectual property layouts.

The parties’ conflict first broke out during the civil litigation phase. In 2022, Tiannan Technology filed a lawsuit against Dachan Nano for trademark infringement and unfair competition with the Intermediate People’s Court of Binzhou, Shandong Province. At the time, Tiannan Technology claimed that after years of continuous use and market promotion, “Cnano” has formed a stable association with Tiannan Technology, and it has a high level of popularity and industry influence in fields such as carbon nanotubes and conductive slurry materials. Tiannan Technology also stated that Dachan Nano used the “cnano” mark in its official website domain name, email address suffix, and 1688 store domain, which easily leads to confusion and misidentification among relevant public, constituting trademark infringement and unfair competition, with clear subjective bad faith of riding on others’ goodwill.

To support its claims in the lawsuit, Tiannan Technology submitted more than a hundred pieces of evidence, including materials covering trademark use, sales contracts, promotional materials, industry reports, and qualification honors. In 2023, the Intermediate People’s Court of Binzhou, Shandong Province issued a first-instance judgment, finding that Dachan Nano constituted infringement and unfair competition, ordering it to stop using domain names and email addresses containing “cnano,” and awarding Tiannan Technology economic losses and reasonable expenses of RMB 150,000. At that time, the ruling put Tiannan Technology in the position of advantage.

“A lawsuit was filed against our domain name ‘cnano.com’ for infringement. This domain name was led in 2000 to be registered by Richard Smalley, one of the pioneers of Nano Technology research and a Nobel Prize winner.” A relevant person in charge of Dachan Nano told the reporter. “In order to commemorate Professor Richard Smalley’s contribution, Dachan Nano purchased this domain name at an appropriate time; it is legitimate.”

On February 16, 2023, Dachan Nano filed a request for invalidation declaration with the National Intellectual Property Administration, directly challenging the registration legitimacy of the disputed trademark. On May 26, 2025, the National Intellectual Property Administration issued a ruling determining that the disputed trademark violates Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item (7) of the 2001 Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China, namely “bearing deception, and easily causing the public to form misperceptions about characteristics such as the quality of goods or the place of origin,” and accordingly declared the “Cnano and Figure” trademark invalid.

On June 24, 2025, Tiannan Technology disclosed the above invalidation declaration ruling through an announcement and stated that it would file an administrative lawsuit within the statutory time limit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, requesting the revocation of the aforementioned ruling. On September 1, 2025, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court accepted the case. On January 6, 2026, the case was publicly heard in an open court session. On April 1, 2026, the court issued a first-instance judgment dismissing all of Tiannan Technology’s claims and upholding the invalidation declaration result. After years of this trademark tug-of-war, Tiannan Technology suffered defeat at the first instance.

“Cnano” was found to be “easily likely to cause misidentification”

The core dispute in this case is whether the registration of the disputed trademark “Cnano and Figure” violates Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item (7) of the 2001 Trademark Law.

Tiannan Technology submitted relevant evidence materials, claiming that “Cnano” is a coined word and that its search results all point to Tiannan Technology, emphasizing that “Cnano” has never been used in a split manner in fact, and that relevant public have never recognized it in a split way. “There are a large number of trademarks containing nano that have been approved for registration in China, and trademarks with the same mark as the disputed trademark have also been approved for registration in the United States, the European Union, Japan, and South Korea, further showing that the disputed trademark is not deceptive and should have its registration maintained.” Tiannan Technology stated in the administrative litigation.

However, the court did not adopt Tiannan Technology’s reasoning. The first-instance judgment obtained by Securities Times·e-Company reporter shows that, after trial, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court found and held that the main readable portion of the disputed trademark is the letter combination “Cnano,” in which “C” is uppercase, “nano” is lowercase, and the two parts are distinguished by their colors; therefore, relevant public are likely to split “Cnano” into “C” and “nano” for identification.

The court further pointed out that “nano” in the relevant industry fields has already formed a corresponding relationship with the meaning of “nanometer.” Therefore, when the disputed trademark is used on the approved goods, it is likely to cause relevant public to mistakenly believe about the characteristics of the goods, such as their ingredients and processing technology, thereby constituting the situation under the relevant provisions of the Trademark Law—namely “bearing deception, and easily causing the public to form misperceptions about characteristics such as the quality of goods or the place of origin.”

In its first-instance ruling, the court held that the facts found in the invalidation declaration ruling made by the National Intellectual Property Administration were clear, the applicable law was correct, and the procedures were lawful. Tiannan Technology’s claims lacked both factual and legal basis, so the court dismissed all of its requests.

Tiannan Technology said it will appeal

As the core brand identifier that Tiannan Technology has used for more than a decade, “Cnano” is deeply embedded throughout its entire business chain, including product sales, market promotion, customer cooperation, and overseas deployment. After this first-instance judgment upheld the invalidation declaration, Tiannan Technology faces the real challenge of a comprehensive switch of its brand identifier and rebuilding market recognition.

As early as last June, after the National Intellectual Property Administration found the disputed trademark invalid, Tiannan Technology stated in an announcement that, “The company has established a comprehensive intellectual property defense system. In addition to the disputed trademark, it has completed the comprehensive registration layout of related backup trademarks. If the disputed trademark is finally ruled invalid by the court, the company will initiate the backup trademark based on the company’s trademark strategy to ensure stable brand operations, and it will not have a material adverse impact on the company’s normal daily business activities such as production, sales, and research and development.”

Before the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, the evidence materials Tiannan Technology provided stated that, “From 2018 to 2024, the company’s shipment volume of carbon nanotubes has remained at the top of the industry. The disputed trademark has been continuously and extensively used, and it has extremely high popularity and influence in the carbon nanotube industry.”

An insider told the reporter that, from an operational perspective, backup trademarks can to some extent reduce business impact caused by trademark invalidation. “However, trademark switching involves comprehensive adjustments to product packaging, promotional materials, the official website, contract documents, and more. Corresponding time, funding, and human resources still need to be invested.” The insider also believed that, “The brand influence and market recognition accumulated by ‘Cnano’ through over ten years of use cannot be directly taken over through backup trademarks, and in the short term it may still affect market identification and promotion efficiency.”

At present, on Tiannan Technology’s official website, the LOGO featuring the “Cnano” text is still being used, and the company also continues to use this LOGO in its periodic reports.

Regarding the first-instance judgment outcome, a person from Dachan Nano stated that it recognizes the decision. Will Tiannan Technology file an appeal? On the afternoon of April 7, Securities Times·e-Company reporter called the company’s securities department phone number. Asked why no related announcement has been made so far, the staff responded that it will disclose the relevant announcement “because certain procedures need to be followed.” They also said the company will file an appeal. “It’s a very small matter—just an issue with the pattern.”