Beijing High People's Court trial judged that in paragraph 3 of article 13 of the trademark law in 2013, is not the same or similar goods to apply for registration of a trademark is a reproduction, imitation or translation of the well-known trademark of others has been registered in China. It misleads the public, causing damage to the famous trademark registrant's interests, shall be rejected for registration and prohibited from use.

In this case, according to the evidence submitted by P&G from 2005 to 2015, the Chinese market advertising monthly report, enterprise honor and awards obtained data, all kinds of media reports, the national library retrieval report, market share, recognition certificate, more than a prior decision or ruling that "OLAY" trademark was identified as well-known trademarks. Before August 13, 2010, the litigation trademark application, citing trademark two on "cosmetics" goods across the country, has carried on extensive publicity and use continuously and occupied a larger market share in cosmetics goods. It is widely known by the relevant public and enjoys a high reputation in China. Therefore, the cited trademark II constitutes a well-known trademark on the "cosmetics" goods.

The character composition of the trademark "Olay" in the lawsuit is the same as that of the second citation trademark "Olay", so the trademark in the lawsuit constitutes a copy and imitation of the second citation trademark. Although certain differences exist between disputed trademark approved backpacks, school bags and other goods with the cited trademark two approved use cosmetics goods such as the functions and purposes, and the production department, they all belong to the daily consumer goods. So the Olaya Company using the disputed trademark on backpacks, school bags, and such commodity trademarks' behavior can easily lead to the public to misunderstand that there is a particular contact between the goods provided by Procter & Gamble and Olaya. So that the interests of P&G may be damaged. Apply for registration of the trademark litigation violated under paragraph 3 of article 13 of the Trademark Law in 2013, the appeal reason for Olaya Company lack of related facts and the legal basis. The Beijing High Court did not support it.