Weekly China Trademark News Updates

February 22, 2024

1. Schneider Electric sued Schneider Elevator and won RMB 40 million in compensation

On February 7, 2024, the Jiangsu High Court issued a second-instance judgment in the case of Schneider Electric v. Schneider Elevator, upholding the first-instance judgment of the Suzhou Intermediate Court that found Schneider Elevator infringed Schneider Electric’s trademark and unfairly competed and awarded compensation of RMB 40 million (USD5.5 million).

The Suzhou Intermediate Court found that the “” and “Schneider in Chinese” trademarks registered by Schneider Electric for use on Class 9 circuit breakers, switches, contactors and other commodities constituted well-known marks. Schneider Elevator prominently used the “Schneider in Chinese” and “SCHNEiDER” logos constituted trademark infringement. Schneider Elevator used “Schneider in Chinese” in its corporate name and used “www.schneider-elevator.cn” and “www.schneider-elevator.com” domain names constituted unfair competition. Based on the operating income of Schneider Elevator, the profit margin of the elevator industry, taking into account the brand contribution, and applying punitive damages based on Schneider Elevator’s bad faith in taking advantage of Schneider Electric, the court decided that the amount of compensation that Schneider Elevator should pay was RMB 40 million.

Both parties appealed to the Jiangsu High Court.

The Jiangsu High Court found that considering the market share of Schneider Electric’s products, relevant publicity reports, companies established in China with the brand name “Schneider in Chinese,” operating income and tax payments, industry rankings, trademark protection records, etc., there were sound factual and legal basis in recognizing the “” and “Schneider in Chinese” marks as well-known marks.

Before the establishment of Schneider Elevator in 2010, Schneider Electric had invested in and established a number of companies with the name “Schneider in Chinese” across China. The audit reports, tax-related certificates, invoices and other evidence submitted by Schneider Electric can prove its large sales scale from its business and the high operating income. And the continuous and large-scale publicity of the company in newspapers and magazines were enough to show that its corporate name “Schneider in Chinese” has a high reputation. Although Schneider Electric does not directly produce elevator products, it produces components for elevator products which are all electromechanical products. The first instance judgment correctly found that Schneider Electric had a certain relationship and market competition with Schneider Elevator. Schneider Elevator should have known about the popularity and influence of Schneider Electric’s corporate name “Schneider in Chinese,” but instead of taking any steps to avoid the word, Schneider Elevator used “Schneider in Chinese” as its corporate name without authorization. Its subjectivity cannot be described as good faith, and the corresponding behavior constituted unfair competition.

Regarding the amount of compensation, Schneider Electric, when filing the lawsuit, clearly requested that the amount of compensation be determined based on the benefits obtained by the infringement, and it did not make a request for punitive damages before the conclusion of the debate before the first-instance court. Therefore, the first-instance court’s application of punitive damages was incorrect. However, given Schneider Elevator’s main business income, elevator industry gross profit margin, profit margin and other evidence, it can be proved that Schneider Elevator’s infringement profits exceed the maximum statutory compensation of RMB5 million. If statutory compensation is simply used to determine the amount of compensation in this case, it will undoubtedly be too low and the right holder will not be able to obtain sufficient compensation. This will not only be extremely unfair to the right holder, but will also objectively indulge the infringement. Therefore, the court found that the discretionary compensation method could be used to determine the amount of compensation in this case. Therefore, after comprehensively considering factors such as the popularity and market value of the rights and trademarks involved, the subjective bad faith of Schneider Elevator, the time and scale of the infringement, and brand contribution, the first instance judgment’s determination of RMB40 million in compensation not was correct.

2. Shenzhen Intermediate Court determined that sales of goods after scratching the codes did not constitute unfair competition

Opple, a well-known lighting manufacturer, purchased several products from Dingfeng through an agent. It was found that the barcodes on the outer packaging boxes of the products had been torn off, but the barcodes on the inner packaging boxes were not. The product packaging used “OPPLE, Opple Lighting in Chinese, OPPLE Opple Electric in Chinese,” and other words. On the bathroom heater product, the “Opple” product label was pasted on the side, but the QR code on the product label was scratched off. The QR code on the back of the ceiling lamp and the QR code on the flat lamp have all been scratched off, and the three codes on the packaging box were scratched off.

Opple filed an unfair competition lawsuit against Dingfeng for scrapping codes to sell goods. The first instance court found that:

As a seller, Dingfeng should know that any alteration or scratching on the product packaging will affect the integrity of the product outer packaging, even affect the traceability and quality assurance functions of the goods sold, and also destroy the order of fair competition among all dealers that sell the brand’s goods, increase the cost of communication between consumers and brands when they encounter quality problems, harm consumer’s rights and interests, and may also cause derogation of the brand value of the right holder. Dingfeng’s sales of code-scratch products undermined the rights holder’s product management system, disrupted the normal order of market competition, harmed the legitimate rights and interests of other operators and consumers, and constituted unfair competition.

Regarding the amount of compensation, since Opple did not provide evidence to prove the benefits gained by Dingfeng from the infringement or the losses it suffered due to the infringement, the first instance court comprehensively considered the popularity of Opple’s brand and trademark, Dingfeng’s subjective fault and the nature and consequences of its infringement behavior, as well as Opple’s reasonable expenses to stop the infringement, and determined that Dingfeng should compensate in the amount of RMB 60,000 (USD8,346).

Dingfeng Company appealed. After the trial, the court of second instance found:

Regarding the products sold by Dingfeng, the logistics outer packaging and the QR codes on the products were scratched, but the QR codes on the outer packaging of the products, as well as all packaging, instructions, trademarks and manufacturer information on the products were completely retained. And according to Opple’s statement, the products involved are indeed products manufactured and sold by Opple. Consumers can also verify the authenticity and apply for after-sales service through the QR code on the product packaging. Therefore, Dingfeng’s sales behavior will not cause consumers to confuse or misunderstand the origin of the products involved.

(1) Regarding consumer interests. What consumers buy are genuine products produced and sold by Opple. They can verify the authenticity and apply for after-sales service by scanning the QR code on the packaging box of the product involved. Although Dingfeng did not inform consumers in advance about the code scratching, consumers were able to determine the source of the products involved by relying on trademarks and authenticity verification, and could still enjoy the product quality and after-sales services provided by Opple, and their interests were not harmed. Moreover, ordinary consumers can freely choose and determine goods or services through information such as trademarks, manufacturers, and after-sales services. The distribution management system within the manufacturer will not have an impact on the free decision-making of ordinary consumers. The source of the goods is authentic, and the after-sales service is guaranteed. Under the circumstances, Dingfeng’s scratching will not affect consumers’ rational judgment on free decision-making.

(2) Regarding the interests of operators. Dingfeng sold genuine products produced and sold by Opple at normal market prices. This behavior had no adverse impact on Opple’s product market share, product sales profits, products and corporate reputation. Dingfeng’s code scratching behavior made it impossible for Opple to internally trace the information of authorized dealers, but it only damaged Opple’s internal management system to a certain extent. Opple’s external operations, external trading opportunities, and external market competitive advantages were all undamaged.

(3) Regarding social and public interests. In this case, the goods trading behavior was open and free, and the transaction price was fair. There was no behavior that restricted competition or harmed the interests of other competitors of Opple. It did not have a negative impact on the legitimate and orderly market competition order, and social and public interests were not harmed.

In summary, this court believes that although Dingfeng’s code scratching hindered Opple’s internal management and caused certain damage its interests, according to the principle of proportionality and the principle of interest measurement, this behavior did not harm consumers. The interests have not reached the level of adversely affecting the competitive environment and order of competition, and there is no need to apply the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The first instance court made an error in its determination, resulting in an erroneous judgment. This court corrected it and ruled that the original judgment should be revoked and all of Opple’s claims should be dismissed.

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