G.E.M.’s Counterstrike on Trademarks and Copyrights: The Legal and Commercial Battle over Intellectual-Property Protecti
-
Introduction – G.E.M. Fights Back
In July 2025, after releasing the re-recorded album I AM GLORIA, G.E.M. (Gloria Tang Tsz-kei) filed applications to register the mark “邓紫棋” (G.E.M.’s Chinese stage name) in classes covering fitness equipment, alcoholic beverages and other goods. The move is widely viewed as a riposte to her former agency, Hummingbird Music. A multi-year copyright dispute between G.E.M. and Hummingbird has simmered since their 2019 split; the fresh trademark filings are not only a bid to reclaim control over her personal brand but have also ignited a broad public debate on intellectual-property (IP) protection.
-
Background and Points of Contention
2.1 Collaboration and Rupture
G.E.M. began working with Hummingbird in 2006. The partnership formally collapsed in March 2019 amid allegations of material breach. After the split, G.E.M. accused the label of registering the marks “邓紫棋,” “G.E.M.” and variants without her consent and of seizing the copyrights to over 100 of her songs. As a result, she claims she is barred from performing, re-recording or otherwise using her early works.
2.2 Re-Recording and Legal Justification
In June 2025 G.E.M. released I AM GLORIA, a re-recording of signature hits such as “泡沫 (Foam)” and “光年之外 (Light Years Away).” She maintains the project is lawful under the statutory-licence provisions of the Copyright Law, which allow a composer/lyricist to re-record once statutory conditions are met. In addition, G.E.M. joined the Composers and Authors Society of Hong Kong (CASH) at age 14, enabling her to retain public-performance, broadcast and online-communication rights.
2.3 Hummingbird’s Response
Hummingbird issued a statement asserting that the re-recordings infringe both its sound-recording and musical-work copyrights, and demanded that all re-recorded tracks be taken down within 48 hours. The label insists that, under the original contracts, all copyrights and neighbouring rights in works created during the term belong to the company.
-
Legal Analysis
3.1 Trademark vs. Prior Rights
Article 32 of the Trademark Law prohibits registration that harms existing prior rights. When Hummingbird registered “邓紫棋” in 2014, G.E.M. was already widely known; her stage name had developed an exclusive and stable association with her persona. Thus, she can argue that the registrations violated her prior rights, including the right of name and the right to exploit her stage identity.
3.2 Copyright and Statutory Licence
G.E.M.’s re-recording relies on the statutory-licence clause of the Copyright Law. Although Hummingbird claims exclusive rights in the original sound recordings, G.E.M.’s CASH membership secures her public-communication rights, providing a pathway to lawful re-recording and distribution.
3.3 Trademark Invalidation Strategy
By filing new applications for “邓紫棋,” G.E.M. exploits the vulnerability of several Hummingbird-owned marks that face cancellation for non-use for three consecutive years. The tactic is designed to help her regain brand control and offers a template for other artists.
-
Commercial Analysis
4.1 Value of the Re-Recorded Album
I AM GLORIA is commercially potent. Re-recording allows G.E.M. to monetise her catalogue without touching the master recordings controlled by Hummingbird, mirroring Taylor Swift’s “Taylor’s Version” strategy.
4.2 Trademark Registration as Business Expansion
The new filings cover classes such as fitness equipment and alcoholic beverages, signalling plans to diversify product lines while preventing unauthorised commercial use of her name.
4.3 Fan and Market Support
The album and the trademark battle have repeatedly trended on social media, demonstrating both grassroots enthusiasm for G.E.M. and wider market endorsement of stronger IP protection.
-
Precedents and Recommendations
5.1 Industry Precedents
-
Jay Chou registered “Jay Chou” across all 45 Nice classes, forestalling unauthorised use of his name in music, apparel, food and beyond.
-
Taylor Swift re-recorded her early catalogue, successfully bypassing the original rights holder and monetising her work anew.
5.2 Recommended Solutions
-
Artists: Scrutinise contracts before signing; avoid blind commitments; secure trademark protection for stage names and other identifiers early.
-
Agencies: Respect artists’ prior rights; refrain from registering marks without authorisation; delineate rights and obligations transparently in agreements.
-
Legal Institutions: Intensify public education on IP protection to raise societal awareness.
-
Conclusion – Why IP Protection Matters
The G.E.M.–Hummingbird dispute is more than a clash between an artist and her former label; it is a landmark test of IP safeguards. It underscores the need for creators to read contracts vigilantly and safeguard their rights, and for agencies to honour prior entitlements. As awareness grows and the legal framework matures, comparable conflicts should diminish, and creators’ lawful interests will be better secured.
