Weekly China Brand Protection News

March 7, 2025

SALOMON’s “Mountain-Shaped Line” Shoe Design Recognized as Influential Product Design

Amer Sports Equipment Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (“Amer Sports”) filed a lawsuit against Hainan Suyin Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd. (“Hainan Suyin”), Guangdong Suyin Brand Management Co., Ltd. (“Guangdong Suyin”), Foshan Suyin Investment Consulting Co., Ltd. (“Foshan Suyin”), and Wu (individual) for trademark infringement and unfair competition. After review, the court ruled as follows:

Third-party Salomon S.A.S is the registrant of  “” with reg. no. 12195008, “Salomon in Chinese” with reg. no. 3995592, and “SALOMON” with reg. no. 145868 “SALOMON”, all registered for use on Class 25 goods including “clothing, sportswear, shoes, etc.” On April 24, 2017, Salomon S.A.S authorized Amer Sports to handle anti-counterfeiting and related cases concerning registered and unregistered trademarks, names, copyrights, and unfair competition within China in its own name, including filing lawsuits, appeals, and collecting related payments. According to this authorization, Amer Sports has the right to appoint representatives to exercise relevant rights including litigation, making it a qualified plaintiff in this case.

Regarding whether the “” logo used by the four defendants on their allegedly infringing products constitutes trademark infringement:

In this case, the registered trademark “” consists of stylized English letters “S” and “SALOMON” arranged in two rows. The allegedly infringing logo is a single English letter “S.” When comparing the allegedly infringing “S” logo with the registered ” ” trademark, there are significant differences in design composition, and the overall structures are not similar. It is difficult to determine if they are similar trademarks, so the allegedly infringing logo used by the four defendants cannot be deemed as trademark infringement.

The specific reasons are:

First, regarding design elements, the registered trademark consists of a stylized “S” graphic and “SALOMON” letters, forming a complete “” logo; while the allegedly infringing logo is a single letter “S.” Although the design characteristics of this “S” are similar to the registered trademark, from an overall visual effect, there are significant differences.

Second, regarding pronunciation and meaning, there are also significant differences. Generally, a single English letter itself lacks distinctiveness and is difficult to register, unless the single “S” has gained strong distinctiveness through long-term use. In this case, the allegedly infringing logo is “S” while the registered trademark is “,” which differs in pronunciation and meaning.

Third, the allegedly infringing products simultaneously use “sheiiStudio,” “CHRISTINE sheii,” or “sheii” logos, which are either registered trademarks of Guangdong Suyin or trademarks applied by Foshan Suyin. It is reasonably justified for the alleged infringers to use the first letter of the “Suyin” brand on their products.

Fourth, “S” is an English letter or a pinyin letter, a basic unit of language expression that has been used by humans for a long time and is a crystallization of human wisdom. Allowing the monopolization of a single English letter “S” by an individual or entity would inappropriately expand the scope of trademark prohibition rights and affect the legitimate rights of other operators. Therefore, considering these factors, the allegedly infringing logo and the registered trademarks do not constitute similar trademarks, and the use of related logos by the alleged infringers should not be determined as trademark infringement under the Trademark Law. Amer Sports’s claim on this matter cannot be established, and the second-instance court does not support it.

Regarding whether the allegedly infringing product design infringes on the product design that Amer Sports seeks to protect, the court ruled as follows:

First, regarding the determination of the design content that Amer Sports requests protection for and whether it is unique design: The product design mainly features prominent mountain-shaped zigzag lines on the central sides of the shoes, starting from approximately 1/4 of the way from the toe and extending to the inflection point of the side of the heel counter. The lines gradually increase in height from toe to heel, with an overall leftward tilt toward the toe, occupying approximately 80-90% of the upper’s area. Second, there is a wide decorative strip near the bottom of the upper that intersects with the side zigzag lines, slightly wavy near the toe, creating a smooth, streamlined effect around the shoe. The upper lines correspond to the shoe shape, creating a harmonious overall effect. The upper follows the shape of the zigzag lines, presenting unique and distinctive coloring, with the inflection points and peaks of the mountain-shaped lines connecting to each other. The shoelace eyelets are symmetrical on both sides, the sole has distinct layers, and the outsole features deep geometric grooves extending to wrap around the toe, forming a prominent trapezoidal design. All elements combined are unique and distinctive. Comparing with the design documents submitted by Hainan Suyin, Guangdong Suyin, Foshan Suyin, and Wu, the design in question does not completely match the features of these prior design patents, with differences in the angles of the zigzag lines and the way the lines intersect. Although the design in question shares some design features with prior designs, it is not a reproduction of those design features. The allegedly infringing design is almost identical to the design in question. Considering the limited design space for shoe products, given that the design in question differs from prior design features, it can be protected as a unique design. Therefore, the defense of non-infringement based on prior design patents put forward by Hainan Suyin, Guangdong Suyin, Foshan Suyin, and Wu cannot be established.

Second, regarding whether the design in question has a certain level of influence: Based on the “Search Report” submitted by Amer Sports, offline store operations, various platforms’ promotion and reporting of the XT-6, XT-quest, XAPRO and other products, and sales volumes, it can be proven that Amer Sports sells multiple models of sports shoes including XT-6, XT-quest, and XAPRO through various offline stores and online sales platforms. Through extensive and continuous sales and promotion, these sports shoe models can be considered known to the relevant public, meaning that the products in question can be determined to have “a certain level of influence.” In this case, the design that Amer Sports seeks to protect is text and pattern design. Although it claims nine design elements, from its specific description, it is claiming nine characteristics of the design. Among these nine characteristics, the most distinctive feature is the mountain-shaped zigzag pattern on the upper. This consists of three or four consecutive zigzag lines starting from approximately 1/4 of the way from the toe toward the upper, with each zigzag line head used for threading shoelaces. As for the other design features claimed by Amer Sports, compared with similar products in the market, they do not produce distinctively different design feature effects. Overall, the “mountain-shaped zigzag line” design claimed by Amer Sports can be recognized as unique product design. However, regarding Amer Sports’ request to protect the names XT-6, XT-QUEST, and XA Pro: first, Amer Sports did not explicitly request protection for these model names in the first instance; second, Amer Sports did not submit relevant evidence to the court regarding the distinctive features and reputation of these names that distinguish them from other similar products. Therefore, the court does not support Amer Sports’ claim to protect these names.

Third, whether the allegedly infringing products infringe on the design of the products in question. The allegedly infringing products produced and sold by Hainan Suyin also use mountain-shaped zigzag structures, and some allegedly infringing products are labeled “XAPRO.” When comparing the design of the allegedly infringing products produced by Hainan Suyin with the design of XT-6, XT-quest, XAPRO and other sports shoes in isolation, the two are highly similar in overall design and visual effect, especially in the design of the mountain-shaped zigzag lines. Additionally, some allegedly infringing products use “XA PRO,” making it difficult for consumers with ordinary attention to accurately distinguish between the two, which can easily cause confusion and mistaken purchases. Since Hainan Suyin, Guangdong Suyin, Foshan Suyin, and Wu cannot prove that the mountain-shaped structure and “XAPRO” marking have become universal designs or universal markings, the allegedly infringing product design infringes on the design of the products in question.

Follow us on LinkedIn! Email: trademark@beijingeastip.com Tel: +86 10 8518 9318 | Fax: +86 10 8518 9338 Address: Suite 1601, Tower E2, Oriental Plaza, 1 East Chang An Ave., Dongcheng Dist., Beijing, 100738, P.R. China