Weekly China Trademark News Updates

April 12, 2023

1. Ralph Lauren was awarded RMB 3.3 million in an unfair competition dispute involving storefront decorations

The Jiangsu High Court recently concluded an unfair competition dispute between Ralph Lauren Company, Polo/Lauren Co., Ltd. (“Polo Lauren”), Ralph Lauren Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (“Ralph Lauren Shanghai”), Shanghai Ruifa Clothing Co., Ltd. (“Ruifa”), Shanghai Yangpu Qiansheng Household Goods Store (“Qiansheng Household”), and Suzhou Industrial Park Pengfa Clothing Store (“Pengfa”). The court made a final decision that Ruifa, Guojie LIN, and Guopeng LIN to immediately stop the unfair competition and compensate Ralph Lauren for economic loss of RMB3 million (USD435,875) and the reasonable expenses spent to stop the infringement totaled RMB300,000 (USD43,587).

Regarding whether Ruifa’s actions constituted unfair competition, the court found that: First, Ruifa used, without authorization, the store decoration and product packaging of Ralph Lauren which had a certain influence. The store decoration and product packaging involved in the case had already had a certain impact. Ralph Lauren is a well-known international company. Its Ralph Lauren brand stores are all over the world with nearly 100 active “Polo Ralph Lauren” stores in China. The brand has a high reputation and influence in the relevant consumer market. The main features of the store decoration involved in the case are a dark background wall outside the store, with eye-catching bright yellow “POLO RALPH LAUREN” logo and a “polo rider” graphic logo on the wall as prominent signboard decoration. On top of the store’s entrance is the bright yellow “POLO RALPH LAUREN” signboard. The store’s interior design uses many retro wooden materials decoration design, including product display design based on unique wooden shelves, exposed white brick walls, and embellished with retro style posters. The lighting design on the ceiling is a unique linear shape that adopts a retro style, which constitutes an overall business image with a unique style. The main features of the product packaging involved in the case include: a hard paper cuboid shopping bag with a blue background color, a bright yellow “POLO RALPH LAUREN” text printed on one side of the paper bag, and bright yellow “Polo Rider” graphic logo printed on the other side. The various design elements of the said store decoration and product packaging complement each other and are inseparable, which present a unique visual effect of American retro style as a whole and carry distinctive features to identify the source. Second, Ruifa adopted a combination of design elements similar to “Polo Ralph Lauren” store decoration and product packaging in its store decoration and product packaging, including a dark bottom plate on the storefront with bright yellow “POLO SPORT” text and a “Polo Rider” graphic logo. The overall decoration of the store was in retro style that used a large number of wooden materials and recycled bricks painted with white paint, and the ceiling lighting devices were arranged in a straight line. The shopping bag printed with bright yellow “POLO SPORT” text and a “Polo Rider” graphic logo. The said store decorations and product packaging used by Ruifa were basically the same as those of Ralph Lauren in terms of visual effect, and it was very easy for the relevant public to mistakenly believe that Ruifa’s products came from Ralph Lauren or there exists a specific connection between the two.

Second, Ruifa made misleading statements in its publicity. Its official website and WeChat public account positioned itself as a sports style brand founded in the new leisure era in the United States and transplanted a large number of “Polo Ralph Lauren” brand creations and Ralph Lauren’s history of entering the China market. Ruifa failed to provide corresponding evidence to prove that the said publicity content was related to itself, and its franchise store, Pengfa, made misleading statements to consumers in the actual operation process. In addition, relevant consumer’s comments also reflected that “POLO SPORT” store salesperson publicized that it was a POLO brand. The above misleading statements of Ruifa were enough to make the relevant public to mistakenly believe the brand “POLO SPORT” operated by Ruifa as a sub-brand of the “Polo Ralph Lauren” brand of Ralph Lauren or there was an association with the “Polo Ralph Lauren” brand.

Third, Ruifa imitated some of the classic clothing styles of Ralph Lauren such as the “Polo Bear,” “Winter Stadium,” and embroidered logo series clothing that are all classic clothing styles independently designed by the “Polo Ralph Lauren” brand with a strong brand style. The “POLO SPORT” brand of Ruifa had successively launched several products similar to the said clothing styles. The two clothing styles were highly similar in terms of pattern shape, layout design, and overall image.

Accordingly, it should be determined that the said behavior of Ruifa constituted unfair competition.

2. The combination mark of “Peppa Pig in Chinese” is recognized as a well-known mark and granted cross-class protection

In March 2023, the Guangdong High’s Court concluded a trademark infringement dispute between Entertainment One UK Limited (Entertainment One), Yanlin CAI, Yiwen CAI, and Shenzhen Aosha Import and Export Co., Ltd. In the judgment, Yanlin CAI and Yiwen CAI were judged to compensate Entertainment One for economic losses and reasonable expenses paid for stopping the infringement totaling RMB500,000 (USD72,600).

Entertainment One is the registrant of the “ ” mark with reg. no. 12330796 and the “” mark with reg. no. 12330735 in Class 9 for “computer game software (recorded), electronic learning machine, cartoon, etc.” Baida Company, ran by Yanlin CAI and Yiwen CAI, sold products such as “Peppa Pig QQ Candy,” “Peppa Pig Sandwich Marshmallow,” and “Peppa Pig George Popsicle” in its online store.

The second instance court found that: according to the evidence in the case, it can be proved that through the continuous publicity and use of the “” mark by Entertainment One, such trademark has a very high reputation in cartoon products and is widely known to the relevant public in China, which constituted a well-known mark.

In this case, although the infringing marks “,” “,” and “” altered “Peppa Pig” to “PeiPeiPig,” and changed “Peppa Pig in Chinese” to “Xiao Zhu Pei Pei,” they still kept the “Xiao Zhu Pei in Chinese” and the distinctiveness of the “Pig” and double P. Moreover, the changed font and position arrangement were the same as the Cited Marks, and other main constituent elements such as the cloud-shaped frame, the image of Peppa Pig, and the relative position arrangement between the main elements were still highly similar to the Cited Marks. In this case, although there was a certain difference, they were enough to make ordinary consumers misidentify the source of the goods using the accused mark, which was likely to cause confusion.

Considering the popularity of the Cited Marks, the nature and quantity of the allegedly infringing products, the nature of the alleged infringement, the circumstances of the infringement and subjective faults of Yanlin CAI, Yiwen CAI and Aosha, and the reasonable expenses paid by Entertainment One for rights protection, the second instance court affirmed the first-instance judgment that determined Yanlin CAI and Yiwen CAI should compensate Entertainment One for economic losses and reasonable expenses of RMB500,000 (USD72,600).

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