Weekly China Brand Protection News

April 23, 2024

1. The Fujian High Court applied punitive damages against infringers of South Korean brand ADLV and awarded RMB 6 million in compensation

Recently, the Fujian High Court concluded a second-instance trademark infringement dispute between Sewoong Global Co., Ltd., (“Sewoong”) and Jingdezhen Dehang Trading Co., Ltd. (“Dehang”), Xiamen Dajun Trading Co., Ltd. (“Dajun”), Feifan Nvlang (Xiamen) Trading Co., Ltd. (“Feifan Nvlang”), an individual Zhou, an individual Lin. The court applied punitive damages based on the obvious serious malicious intent of the infringement by Dajun and Dehang. The court also ordered the infringing products and packaging to be destroyed immediately. The defendants shall be jointly compensating Sewoong for economic losses and reasonable expenses to stop the infringement, totaling RMB 5.925 million (USD814,152)

Cited Marks

The court found that: First, the accused infringing product was the same gods as the approved goods of Sewoong’s “ADLV” mark with reg. no. 28261402, “acmé de la vie” mark with reg. no. 39050794, “acmédelavie” mark with reg. no. 38630247, and “acmédelavie” mark with reg. no. 29065353. The alleged infringing product used identical labels, hang tags, laundry tags, and outer packaging bags, which constitutes infringement. The packaging and hangtag of the accused infringing product use the “www.acmedelavie.com” logo, which includes the main distinctive part of the “acmédelavie” mark with reg. no. 38630247. Therefore, there is basically no visual difference between the two and constitute infringement. The sales carried out by Dehang and Dajun infringed Sewoong’s trademark rights.

Second, Dajun and Dehang comprehensively counterfeited the Cited Marks and obtained huge sales volume and sales. Sewoong filed 25 complaints with e-commerce platform, however, Dajun and Dehang provided false materials and statements to the platform to escape review and continue to sell infringing products. After Sewoong filed this lawsuit, although the flagship store involved stopped selling infringing products, the customer service of the flagship store still diverted customers to the WeChat platform to continue for purchase. Dajun admitted that the infringing products involved in the case were provided to Dehang, but it refused to provide the source of the goods without justifiable reasons. It should be identified as the manufacturer of the infringing products involved in the case. In summary, Dajun and Dehang’s infringement was obvious and intentional, and the infringement was serious, so punitive damages should be applied.

2. Squatters of “ReFa” mark was ordered to immediately stop filing similar marks for registration

Recently, the Ningbo Yinzhou District Court concluded a trademark infringement and anti-unfair competition dispute between MTG Co., Ltd. (“MTG”), a Zhejiang electrical appliance company, a Ningbo electrical appliance company, a Ningbo holding company, a Ningbo network technology company, and a Ningbo electronic technology company (“defendants”). The court found that the defendants’ actions constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition. The infringement of the plaintiff’s exclusive rights to registered trademarks with reg. nos. G1149527, 36415538, and 47113710 should be immediately stopped, and the defendants should jointly and severally compensate the plaintiff for economic losses and reasonable expenses incurred to stop the infringement, totaling RMB650,000 (USD 89,693).

Cited Marks

The court found that: First, the defendants used the “Refa in Chinese”, “refa” and “Refa” logos on the product name of its hair dryer products, product details page, store home page promotion picture, top and bottom of the home page, and on the packaging box and handbag. The “Refa in Chinese” logo is used in the manual, fuselage, etc., which is a trademark use. The “Refa in Chinese” logo is the same as MTG’s trademark, and the goods used constitute identical goods. Such uses infringed MTG’s trademark right. The “refa” and “Refa” logos have the same English composition as MTG’s Cited Mark. The only differences are letter size and composition, which are enough to cause confusion and misunderstanding among the relevant public about the source of the goods. These marks constitute similar. The defendants’ production and sale of the product infringes MTG’s trademark right.

Second, the defendants used the word “ReFa” in the product names and brand marks of the two products, and the “ReFa” logo on the display box, manual, charging cable packaging paper, body, etc. The sonic facial cleansing product constitutes identical goods with the approved goods of MTG’s prior mark with reg. no. G1149527. The rotating facial cleansing product constitutes similar goods to the approved goods in terms of functional use, consumer objects, etc. The “ReFa” logo is identical with MTG’s Cited Mark. “ReFa” shares identical letters and composition with the Cited Mark. The only differences are the letter size and composition, which are enough to cause confusion and misunderstanding among the relevant public about the source of the goods. The marks constitute similar. Therefore, the use of the said logo, production and selling of the accused infringing products infringed upon MTG’s trademark right.

Third, MTG’s cited mark with reg. no. G1149527 applied for extension of protection in China on March 2, 2013. In 2013, MTG started promoting the ReFa brand and selling products. Both “ReFa in Chinese” and “ReFa” have high originality. The defendants first began to file for “REFA” and “Refa in Chinese” marks in August 2014, and began to file a large number of these marks in 2017. When the defendants applied for the “REFA” and “Refa in Chinese” marks after the MTG’s products entered the Chinese market and when MTG’s brand had a certain fame and influence in China’s household beauty equipment industry. Such marks were highly similar to the Cited Marks in terms of Chinese and English composition, and the defendants also failed to provide a reasonable explanation for its intention to register these marks and the source of the design creation. It can be concluded that the defendants had the intention to imitate MTG’s Cited Marks. Judging from the classes and quantity of the marks filed by the defendants, the numbers were obviously beyond the needs of normal business operations. It can be concluded that the defendant has the intention to hoard trademarks and engage in unfair competition with the goodwill of MTG’s brand. The said defendants’ actions of constituted unfair competition.

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