Legal Analysis: Why SKE Lost the “CRYSTAL BAR” Trademark Case and Key Takeaways

Disclaimer: 

1. This article is a guest post from an expert's point of view, and has been authorized for publication by the author. 

2. The opinions expressed in the article represent the personal views of the expert and not necessarily those of the platform. 

3. The platform shares this article with the aim of delivering information and diverse perspectives. Readers are advised to carefully evaluate and cite the information and viewpoints presented in this article.

Full Abstract:

In July 2025, the High Court of England dismissed an appeal by the Chinese e-cigarette company Sikary regarding the "CRYSTAL BAR" trademark, confirming that the UK company Bargain Busting had the legal right to register it. The core of the dispute lies in the conflict between "prior use" and "prior registration". Despite Sikary claiming to have promoted the brand in England as early as the end of 2021, insufficient evidence was provided to prove that it had established a protectable reputation by May 10, 2022, ultimately resulting in their defeat.

In this article, the author analyzes the reasons for the loss of the case, which can be attributed to three factors: firstly, Sikary company failed to provide sufficient clear evidence to prove the actual commercial use and influence of "CRYSTAL BAR" before the disputed trademark application date; secondly, existing evidence mainly focuses on post-application date activities; and thirdly, some materials cannot directly correlate to specific trademark usage behaviors. Based on this, the British court ruled that Sikary could not prevent Bargain Busting company from obtaining registration rights.

The author pointed out that in this case, it serves as a warning for companies going abroad to prioritize completing trademark registration and keeping systematic records of their sales, promotions, and other uses to avoid the risk of losing their rights despite being the first to use the trademark.

In-Depth Analysis: Reasons for the Defeat of the Sikary "CRYSTAL BAR" Trademark Case and Its Implications

Author: Liu Peiling, lawyer

1.Introduction of the case

In July 2025, the High Court of England ruled in favor of the UK company Bargain Busting in the trademark dispute with China's e-cigarette company Shenzhen Sikary Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Sikary Company"), rejecting Sikary's appeal and confirming Bargain Busting's lawful registration of the "CRYSTAL BAR" trademark. This ruling not only reflects the characteristics of the UK trademark law system, but also highlights the challenges Chinese brands face in the international market in terms of intellectual property rights. Previously, in the decision No. O/1063/24 made on November 8, 2024, Sikary's opposition to the trademark application was rejected.

The trademark in question is "CRYSTAL BAR" with registration number 3786148 in Class 34, including e-cigarette and vaporizer products. This trademark was applied for by Tashmeen Kaur on May 10, 2022, and was transferred to the UK company Bargain Busting before a decision was made following a hearing by the hearing officer on March 13, 2024.

Sikary company has raised objections to the use of the "CRYSTAL BAR" trademark, claiming that by May 10, 2022, they had already established relevant goodwill with the trademark for their e-cigarette and vaporizer products. The British company Bargain Busting's use of the trademark would confuse consumers and potentially harm the brand's reputation. The evidence submitted by Sikary company includes: (list evidence)

2. In-Depth Analysis of the Reasons for the Defeat in the Lawsuit

(1).The core rules of the UK trademark legal system.

The UK trademark system is based on a first-to-apply principle. Unless the other party can definitively prove that they had a protectable reputation in the UK before the application date, it is difficult to challenge the rights of the first applicant. In the case of Sikary, Bargain Busting company submitted a trademark application for "CRYSTAL BAR" on May 10, 2022, and Sikary needs to prove that prior to this date, products under the name CRYSTAL BAR had accumulated sufficient reputation.

(2).The weak link in Sikary company's chain of evidence

The reason for Sikary's loss in court was due to a lack of sufficient and compelling evidence to prove that it had a protectable reputation in the UK before May 10, 2022.

Although they submitted evidence including the aforementioned form, there is little evidence regarding the use of "CRYSTAL BAR" before May 10, 2022, and no evidence has been provided regarding trading in the UK before that date. Even the e-cigarette product named "CRYSTAL" was not approved until the day before the trademark application date.

Even during the "preview sale" at the World Vape Expo in London on December 10-11, 2021, there was no evidence provided to show how many people attended the event, how many visited Sikary's booth, and how Sikary promoted its products.

3. Insights on the Overseas Intellectual Property Layout of Chinese Brands

Against the backdrop of booming growth in the e-cigarette industry, market competition is fierce. As trademarks serve as important assets for brand identity and market competition, their value is increasingly significant. In order to gain a competitive advantage, some companies may adopt a trademark squatting strategy. When Sikary Company entered the UK market, they may have lacked foresight in trademark protection and failed to fully consider the potential risks of trademark squatting, leaving them in a passive position when faced with trademark disputes.

Therefore, Chinese e-cigarette companies looking to expand overseas must pay attention to the following aspects of management:

(1) Strengthening the foresight of trademark registration

When expanding into overseas markets, Chinese brands should prioritize trademark registration and plan their trademark layout in advance. Before entering the target market, thorough trademark searches should be conducted to fully understand local trademark laws and registration situations, in order to avoid conflicts with existing registered or pending trademarks. For trademarks with market potential and brand value, registration applications should be submitted as early as possible to ensure legal trademark rights are obtained before market promotion, securing a competitive edge in brand protection. Additionally, attention should be paid to the international classification of trademarks, covering relevant categories comprehensively based on the scope of business and future development plans of the company to prevent malicious registration by others in other categories.

(2) Improve the retention of evidence of trademark use

Businesses must focus on collecting and organizing evidence of trademark use in their daily operations. This evidence includes, but is not limited to, sales contracts, invoices, advertising materials, product packaging, records of marketing activities, consumer feedback, and so on. The evidence should be authentic, relevant, and complete, clearly demonstrating the actual use of the trademark in the target market and the market impact it has generated. It is important to regularly review and file away evidence of trademark use in order to quickly and accurately provide strong evidence to support one's claim to trademark rights in the event of a dispute. Additionally, when conducting marketing activities, businesses should ensure that the use of the trademark is standardized and consistent, reinforcing consumer recognition and memory of the brand.

Conclusion:

The "CRYSTAL BAR" trademark case has sounded an alarm for Chinese brands regarding overseas intellectual property protection. In today's increasingly competitive global market, Chinese brands must prioritize intellectual property protection in order to develop steadily in foreign markets. This includes strategic planning, evidence management, and system construction to enhance their own intellectual property protection capabilities, avoid similar trademark disputes, and safeguard the international development of their brands.

Author's bio:

Liu Peiling, an intellectual property lawyer at Tianyuan Law Firm, specializes in patent searches, analysis, invalidation, and litigation in the field of new tobacco. (Provided by Liu Peiling)

Statement: The cover image was generated by AI.