Weekly China Brand Protection News

March 21, 2024

1. The Guangdong High Court reversed a trademark infringement dispute in a retrial regarding the use of trademarks in foreign OEM

On February 22, the Guangdong High Court reversed a trademark infringement dispute in a retrial between Fila Sports Co., Ltd. (“Fila”) and Hunan Jiahui Technology Co., Ltd. (“Jiahui”). The court upheld the first-instance judgment that ordered Jiahui to immediately stop infringing on Fila’s following trademark rights “Fila Company in Chinese &   ,” “,” “,” and “,” and to stop producing and selling infringing products. Jiahui should compensate for economic losses (including reasonable expenses to stop the infringement) for RMB 200,000 (USD27,780).

In this case, courts at all levels confirmed that Jiahui’s processing and production activities were foreign-related OEM activities. Courts at all levels, however, have differed on whether Jiahui’s act of affixing the allegedly infringing logos on its goods is considered trademark use within the meaning of trademark law. On retrial, the Guangdong High Court found that: trademark use is an objective behavior, which usually includes many processes, such as physical affixing in the production process, marketing, and sales in the circulation, etc. When a trademark logo is physically affixed to a manufactured or processed product, if the logo has the likelihood of distinguishing the source of the goods and can play a role in distinguishing the source of the goods, such use should be deemed to be “trademark use” as stipulated in the Trademark Law. In this case, Jiahui, as an OEM, affixed the allegedly infringing logos on the garments it processed, which obviously had the purpose of identifying the source of goods. The logos can also have the actual effect of identifying the source of the goods and should be recognized as trademark use. Affixing a trademark is an objective act, and the identification function of the trademark is an objective result. Jiahui was fulfilling the obligations of the foreign-related OEM processing contract. This is only the reason for the act of affixing the trademark, and it will not affect the qualitative nature of such trademark use. In addition, with the development of e-commerce and the Internet, even if the allegedly infringing goods are exported goods, there is still the possibility of being returned to China. In summary, the second instance court found that Jiahui’s affixing a trademark did not constitute trademark use on the grounds that the allegedly infringing goods had not entered the mainland China market for circulation and sale, and the alleged infringing logo did not have the function of identifying the source of the goods in the mainland Chinese market was wrong and this court corrects it.

Jiahui claimed that it obtained the production authorization from Shengrui LIU, the owner of the “Feidisi in Chinese & FTSS” trademark, and directly exported products to the clients after OEM processing, so it did not infringe. According to the Trademark Law on the determination of trademark infringement, the principle of liability for trademark infringement shall be the principle of no-fault liability. Moreover, trademark rights are territorial. The trademark of the third-party in the case is only registered in the Taiwan region, and has no trademark rights in mainland China. Moreover, the trademark application of the third-party in the case was registered in 2019, which was later than the registration date of the Cited Marks of Fila. Fila has submitted evidence to prove that its series of trademarks involved in the case had a high reputation in the domestic market before the third-party trademark application was filed. As an operator in the same industry, Jiahui should have known about this fact. There is a clear difference between the “Feidisi in Chinese & FTSS” trademark and the accused infringing logos. The accused infringing logos have the upper and lower color distinction of the initial letters, which is completely consistent with the design of the initial letters of Fila’s trademark, making it more similar to Fila’s trademark. Under this premise, Jiahui still affixed the alleged infringing logo that is obviously different in appearance from its authorized logo on the clothing it processed. It was at least negligent and difficult to believe that it fulfilled its duty of reasonable review and care. In summary, Jiahui’s non-infringement defense cannot be established.

2. The defendants improperly took advantage of the market reputation of Liuzhou Hotel’s well-known trademark. Considered the infringing hotel was used as a quarantine hotel during the epidemic, the defendants were ordered to pay RMB 1 million.

On December 20, 2023, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court concluded a first-instance trademark infringement dispute between the plaintiff Liuzhou Hotel Group (“Liuzhou”) and the defendants Guiyang Yunlu Hotel Management Co., Ltd. (“Guiyang Yunlu”), Fujian Yunlu Hotel Management Co., Ltd. (“Fujian Yunlu”). The court ordered the defendant Guiyang Yunlu and Fujian Yunlu to immediately stop using the “Yulu Crowne Plaza Hotel” logo. The two defendants were ordered to compensate the Liuzhou for economic losses of RMB 1 million (USD138,900) and reasonable expenses of RMB250,000 (USD34,725).

Regarding whether the alleged infringement behavior of the Guiyang Yunlu infringed on Liuzhou’s trademark rights, in this case, comprehensive consideration was given to the multiple notarial certificates submitted by the Liuzhou proving that it promoted and used the cited trademarks, printouts of relevant online reports, court judgments and administrative agency rulings that Liuzhou’s trademark was deemed to be relatively well-known or had reached a well-known status. In this case, it can be determined that the “Crown Plaza Hotel” mark with reg. no. 2021114 approved for use in providing accommodation services has a high reputation in China and has reached well-known status.

The “Yulu Crowne Plaza Hotel” used by Guiyang Yunlu is similar in text composition and pronunciation to Liuzhou’s cited mark, which constituted an imitation and translation of Liuzhou’s well-known trademark. The defendant’s use of “Yulu Crowne Plaza Hotel” for the same services as Liuzhou’s well-known trademark was enough to make the relevant public associate that the trademark used by the defendants was closely related to Liuzhou’s well-known trademark, thus unfairly taking advantage of Liuzhou’s well-known mark market reputation and harmed its interests. Therefore, the defendant’s use of “Yulu Crowne Plaza Hotel” has constituted an infringement of Liuzhou’s well-known trademark.

Regarding compensation for losses. The court fully considered factors such as the alleged infringing hotel’s operating autonomy during the period when it was used as an quarantine hotel and the limited role of its logo as a trademark, as well as the overall situation of the hotel industry during COVID. The amount of compensation in this case should be limited to the statutory compensation amount in accordance with the law. Considering the close relationship between the first and second defendants such as shareholder relationship and trademark licensing, the two defendants in this case should bear joint and several liability.

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