In a recent decision, the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) found that MOUNTAIN PEAR and YU LU FRAGRANT PEAR trade marks were valid and had been infringed by the use of identical signs. In particular, the marks were not deemed to be generic varietal names or descriptive of the characteristics of pears.

Background and claims

The claimant, Wang Zheng International Ltd, and first defendant, Bing Bing Foods Ltd, were both involved in importing and supplying fruit and vegetables, particularly of Chinese/Asian origin.

The claimant alleged that the defendants had imported, offered for sale, marketed and stocked fruit under signs identical to the following UK trade marks, which cover fresh fruit and related goods (additional confusion based (s. 10(2) TMA) and reputation based (s. 10(3) TMA) claims did not proceed to trial), contrary to section 10(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA):

• MOUNTAIN PEAR;
• 山梨 (which translates to “Mountain Pear”);
• YU LU FRAGRANT PEAR; and
• 玉露香梨 (which translates to “Yu Lu Fragrant Pear”).

The defendants unsuccessfully counterclaimed for invalidity , arguing that the marks are:

• descriptive and non-distinctive, as they designate pear varieties and cannot indicate origin (ss. 3(1)(b)-(c) TMA);
• customary (generic) in the language or practices of the trade, because they are used as varietal names for pears (s. 3(1)(d) TMA); and
• filed in bad faith, to prevent third parties from importing generic fruit varieties (s. 3(6) TMA).

They further argued the marks had become common trade names and should be revoked under s. 46(1)(c) TMA.

Crucial evidential findings

The IPEC made several key findings which were critical to the claimant’s success:

• the claimant was the first to introduce a specific pear variety, known as Gong Pears, from selected farms in China, to the UK;
• the MOUNTAIN PEAR brand, used in relation to Gong Pears, was invented by the claimant;
• pears are typically grown in fertile valleys, not mountainous regions;
• the claimant’s packaging prominently featured the MOUNTAIN PEAR and YU LU FRAGRANT PEAR marks, together with the ® symbol and company branding; and
• the first defendant’s sole director and shareholder knew that MOUNTAIN PEAR was not a varietal name and had no first-hand knowledge proving otherwise.

Invalidity

The unrepresented defendants made unparticularised assertions regarding non-distinctiveness. As such, they failed to discharge their burden of proof that the marks were devoid of distinctive character.

For similar reasons, the judge dismissed the descriptive and generic challenges. It was unnecessary to address the claimant’s unchallenged submissions that MOUNTAIN PEAR was an unusual sign and that YU LU FRAGRANT PEAR (meaning “jade weather fragrant pear”) would not immediately and without further thought be understood as a type of pear variety. The court did not consider that purchasers of everyday goods in the UK would (more generally) recognise recent Chinese pear hybrid varieties. Moreover, the evidence which purported to show that use of the claimant’s marks had become customary in the trade post-dated the relevant dates.

The bad faith challenge also failed. The court did not agree that the claimant’s successful registration of (and failed applications for) other pear-related UKTMs was in pursuit of an illegitimate monopoly over the import of generic fruit varieties into the UK. The marks in issue were not pear variety names, the claimant’s other SNOW PEAR and RED FRAGRANCE marks were registered and thus enjoyed a presumption of validity, and there was no evidence of an intention to undermine competitors’ interests.

Revocation

The IPEC held that use of MOUNTAIN PEAR and YU LU FRAGRANT PEAR (without the ® symbol) on supermarket shelves and within description boxes on invoices did not amount to acceptance that those marks are pear varietal names, contrary to the Defendants’ assertions. The judge found that:

• thousands of brand names appear on supermarket shelves;
• the public does not perceive brand names without the ® symbol as being generic product names;
• it was “highly important” that the claimant’s packaging prominently featured the ® sign, because consumers would primarily focus on that when contemplating or making a purchase, and would disregard e.g. any text on shelf labels; and
• if any doubt arose, a glance at the product packaging with the ® symbol would confirm that MOUNTAIN PEAR and YU LU FRAGRANT PEAR indicated commercial origin;

The claimant also submitted that any generic use was not caused by its acts or omissions (noting that it had taken enforcement action against infringers in the past).

Infringement

The defendants’ pleaded defence that the mark was used in accordance with honest practices (s. 11(2)(b) TMA) was not pursued at trial and arguments that the defendants’ use of identical signs did not affect the functions of the trade marks failed.

The first defendant was accordingly liable for the infringement, and its sole director was also liable as a joint tortfeasor, on the basis that he directed, procured and authorised the company’s infringing acts.

In short

The decision serves as a reminder that UK courts closely scrutinise allegations of descriptiveness, distinctiveness, genericism and bad faith, and that cogent evidence is needed to displace the presumption of validity attached to registered trade marks.

For brand owners, the case highlights the importance of maintaining comprehensive records of their trade mark use. Prominent use of protected marks on product packaging (alongside the ® symbol) can be a significant factor in assessing whether they are capable of denoting commercial origin.  Even where marks are allusive or risk becoming generic, distinctive branding can offer robust protection against unauthorised use.

Case details at a glance 

Jurisdiction: UK
Decision level: High Court (IPEC)
Parties: Wang Zeng International Ltd v Bing Bing Foods Ltd & ors
Date: 20 February 2026
Citation: [2026] EWHC 360 (IPEC)
Decision: dycip.com/2026-ewhc-360-ipec