Hong Kong SAR, China: NAVY SEALS Mark Invalidated

After failing to register NAVY SEALS in Class 14 (watches, etc.) in Hong Kong SAR, China, in 2021, the Department of Navy (USA) (applicant) filed an invalidation against the following prior mark registered in the name of S.W.I. Watches Inc. (Quebec, Canada) (SWI), in Classes 9 (sunglasses, etc.), 14 (watches, etc.), and 18 (bags, etc.) (the registered mark) since 2011:

The applicant claimed that its Sea, Air and Land Teams were commonly known as “Navy SEALs,” which were formally founded in 1962.  Further, its Special Warfare Insignia known as “SEAL Trident” (shown below) was established in 1970.

The applicant claimed its NAVY SEALS and SEAL TRIDENT trademarks had been registered in the United States since 2010, and have been licensed to watchmaker Luminox for the production and sale of watches globally since 1993.

This led to the applicant arguing that the registered mark was obtained in bad faith and should be invalidated.

The applicant did not rely on any prior registration or use of its trademarks in Hong Kong.

SWI did not file any response.

In its written decision dated February 17, 2025, the Registrar of Trademarks at the Hong Kong Intellectual Property Department (IPD) reiterated the principles in determining “bad faith” and reasoned as follows:

1. A person is presumed to have acted in good faith unless the contrary is proved.
2. An allegation of bad faith is a serious allegation which must be distinctly proved. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities, but cogent evidence is required due to the seriousness of the allegation. It is not enough to prove facts which are also consistent with good faith.
3. As SWI is in the watch business, and the devices are identical or so similar, the IPD could infer that SWI had knowledge of the applicant’s marks and that its mark was derived from the applicant’s, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
4. As a prima facie case had been made out, but SWI omitted to provide evidence in rebuttal, the IPD could infer that there was no available evidence to overturn the prima facie case.
5. The IPD held that SWI’s conduct was dishonest (or otherwise fell short of the standards of acceptable commercial behavior) judged by ordinary standards of honest people.

As a result, the IPD supported the applicant’s claims and declared the registered mark invalid.

Although every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of this article, readers are urged to check independently on matters of specific concern or interest. Law & Practice updates are published without comment from INTA except where it has taken an official position.

© 2025 International Trademark Association