University Trademarks: Strategies of Top Chinese Universities

The study examines how leading Chinese universities use trademarks as part of their branding strategies in an increasingly competitive and globalized higher-education environment. While trademarks are essential manifestations of brand identity and protection, prior work has largely focused on enterprises rather than universities, with limited research on university trademark practices. Given that most top Chinese universities are public, emphasize public welfare over marketization, and have historically shown weak trademark awareness, the paper asks: What has been achieved in university trademark registration and management? What patterns, gaps, and legal outcomes characterize their trademark portfolios and enforcement? The authors analyze trademarks and litigation related to 42 "double first-class" universities to assess current practices, reveal systemic issues, and propose actionable improvements.

Prior research links branding in higher education to globalization and market competition, with trademarks serving informational and symbolic roles. Most trademark-based empirical studies analyze enterprises; relatively few directly address university trademarks (e.g., Lamboy, Rooksby, Squicciarini et al.). Studies show branding benefits such as increased recognition and enrollment, and demonstrate evolving brand practices in Western contexts (e.g., athletics, slogans, domain names). Cross-country differences (funding models, autonomy, marketization) shape university trademark behavior, with UK universities driven by fee competition and U.S. institutions exhibiting trademark growth tied to academic capitalism and "multiversity." In China, public funding predominance and cultural emphasis on public welfare contribute to weaker trademark awareness, less focus on athletics and domain names, and more constrained stakeholder governance. Domestic scholarship has covered case studies, regional analyses, specific naming issues, and foreign experiences, but lacks comprehensive, data-driven analysis across a representative group of Chinese universities—addressing which this paper positions itself.

Data sources and scope: The authors collected domestic trademark data for the 42 Chinese "first-class" universities (Class A and B) from the CNIPA China Trademark Website and Biaoju (accessed Feb 17, 2020). They searched each university in the "Name of applicant (Chinese)" field and included accepted applications, authorized registrations, and invalid marks (collectively "trademarks" unless specified). Data were statistically analyzed, classified, and mapped. Trademark litigation data were obtained from OpenLaw (accessed Feb 17, 2020) using advanced retrieval for each university name with keywords "trademark" and case types "civil/administrative," then manually filtered and categorized. Scope restrictions: Only domestic trademarks were analyzed due to large cross-university variance in foreign filings, legal differences affecting key concepts (e.g., distinctiveness), and language complications. The analysis considered timing of first applications, core and non-core marks, elements (word, graphic, letter, combinations), Nice class distributions, counts and legal status (valid, pending, invalid), and litigation roles (plaintiff, third party).

• Timing of first trademark application: Top Chinese universities began filing in the 1980s; by 1999, 15 had filed their first mark, often journal titles in Nice Class 16. Over 2000–2010, ~60% (25) completed their first filing; some universities were late (e.g., Yunnan University 2012; Minzu University of China 2017).
• Core trademarks: Categorized into university seal (1,133), abbreviated Chinese name (1,562), full Chinese name (536), full English name (387), abbreviated English name (444), and core-combination (690). Most common are seals and abbreviated Chinese names; abbreviated English names are least frequent. Reasons include: seals’ representativeness and vulnerability to infringement; public preference for Chinese abbreviations (and related infringement risk); reliance on administrative name registration reducing full-name filings; lower public familiarity and risk for English names; and frequent real-world co-use favoring combinations. Example: Zhengzhou University filed 139 core-combination marks.
• Non-core trademarks: Affiliated units (636), famous scenic campus locations (373), historical names (586), and other (2,508). Protection varies widely: some universities actively protect affiliated units (e.g., East China Normal University, 101 affiliated-unit marks; Sichuan University protects “Huaxi” hospital-related marks), scenic sites (e.g., Peking University’s Weiming Lake, Boya Tower; Wuhan University’s Luojia), and historical names (e.g., Jilin University, 225 historical-name marks across all 45 classes).
• Trademark elements: Word marks are most common (3,925; 44.5%), followed by element-combination (3,312; 37.5%), letter marks (1,258; 14%), and graphics (350; 4%). Leaders include: word marks—Peking University (385), Jilin University (321), Huazhong University of Science and Technology (310); element-combination—East China Normal University (321), Zhengzhou University (276), Beijing Normal University (229), Tianjin University (210); letter marks—Tianjin University (121), Huazhong University of Science and Technology (110); graphic marks—Beijing Institute of Technology (92). Several universities filed only element-combination marks (e.g., Xinjiang University, Harbin Institute of Technology, Minzu University of China).
• Nice Classification distribution: Highest counts in Class 41 (education/entertainment, 716), Class 42 (scientific/technological services, 525), Class 16 (office supplies, 440), Class 9 (scientific instruments, 368), and Class 35 (advertising/business services, 360). These align with core academic and research activities and common infringement areas.
• Portfolio size and legal status: Four universities hold >500 marks (Peking University 619; Huazhong University of Science and Technology; Beijing Institute of Technology; Tianjin University). Twenty-four universities hold 100–500; ten hold 30–99; four hold ~20, forming an "olive-shaped" distribution. Across all 42 universities: valid 6,957 (79%), invalid 1,059 (12%), pending 829 (9%). Some universities have only valid marks (e.g., Lanzhou University, Yunnan University, USTC, Dalian University of Technology, National University of Defense Technology). Invalid marks concentrate at Tianjin University (137), East China Normal University (108), Zhengzhou University (107), often due to lack of distinctiveness in broad multi-class filings. High pending counts at Southeast University (182), Nanjing University (148), Sichuan University (142) reflect recent filing spurts.
• Litigation activity: Only 11 of 42 universities have participated in trademark-related judicial actions as civil or administrative plaintiffs or third parties; Tsinghua University is the outlier (34 civil suits). Most emphasize pre-infringement registration rather than post-infringement enforcement.
• Typical cases: Tsinghua University exemplifies active enforcement, frequently prevailing against infringers across sectors and regions. Renmin University of China’s lapse in renewing its seal and "Ren Ren Ren" marks led to third-party registrations; subsequent invalidation litigation succeeded but at high cost—highlighting renewal and timeline management needs. Sichuan University’s extensive "Huaxi" series registrations (125 marks) coexist with widespread third-party misuse (>3,000 private institutions using "Huaxi"), with limited litigation—illustrating weak enforcement undermining protection. Minzu University of China focused only on a non-core mark ("56 Chuang") across all 45 classes, neglecting core seals/names—an example of misaligned strategy.
• Strategic issues identified: (1) Blindness in applications—gaps in core mark coverage; uneven element/class layouts; attempts to register non-distinctive slogans/terms. (2) Lack of initiative in legal defense—low litigation/objection/invalidation activity; reliance on public statements; low damages reduce incentives. (3) Weak internal management—few dedicated IP offices; limited professional expertise and funding; ad hoc, decentralized decision-making; inadequate timeline/renewal controls.

The analysis reveals that while trademark adoption among top Chinese universities has grown, strategies are uneven and often misaligned with risk and brand value. Core identifiers (seals, Chinese abbreviations) are most protected, reflecting public usage and infringement risk, yet substantial gaps remain across many institutions. High shares in Classes 41, 42, 16, 9, and 35 align with academic activities and infringement hotspots, confirming the need for deliberate multi-class protection. However, high invalidation rates at some universities show resource waste from non-distinctive or overly broad filings, indicating a lack of professional strategy and prior clearance. Sparse litigation (except Tsinghua) suggests overreliance on registration without robust post-infringement enforcement, which diminishes deterrence and permits persistent unauthorized use (e.g., the "Huaxi" case). Organizationally, the absence of specialized IP management, limited budgets, and weak coordination lead to missed renewals, fragmented applications, and under-protection of high-value marks. Collectively, these findings address the research questions by demonstrating that Chinese universities’ trademark practices are expanding but remain suboptimal, shaped by institutional context (public funding, administrative structures) and yielding actionable areas for policy and managerial improvement.

This study provides the first systematic, data-driven analysis of trademarks and related litigation across 42 top Chinese universities. It documents the evolution of filings, the predominance of core identifiers, element and Nice class distributions, portfolio sizes and legal status, and limited enforcement activity. The authors identify three primary problems: blind spots in application strategies (including gaps in core mark coverage and non-distinctive filings), limited legal enforcement, and underdeveloped internal trademark management systems. Recommendations include: (1) formulating comprehensive, needs-based registration strategies prioritizing core marks and selectively covering scenic sites, landmark buildings, and key affiliates; (2) strengthening legal protection through proactive cease-and-desist, objections, invalidations, and litigation; and (3) improving internal management by establishing dedicated IP offices or expert support, developing management manuals, and instituting timeline/renewal early-warning systems. Potential future research could extend to foreign trademark portfolios for comparative analysis, examine causal links between trademark strategies and university outcomes (e.g., reputation, revenue, recruitment), and conduct longitudinal evaluations of the impact of management reforms and enforcement on infringement prevalence.

The study is limited to domestic trademarks and litigation as of February 17, 2020; foreign filings are excluded due to legal and language heterogeneity and cross-institution variance, constraining international comparability. Differences in national trademark distinctiveness standards also limit generalizability. The sample is restricted to 42 first-class Chinese universities, which, while representative of elite institutions, may not reflect broader higher-education practices. Some applications were pending and not classifiable at retrieval time, and reliance on public databases (CNIPA, Biaoju, OpenLaw) may omit or delay certain records. The analysis is primarily descriptive and does not measure causal impacts on outcomes such as revenue or reputation.