Case of a company in Hangzhou v. a firm in Shanghai over trademark infringement

[Case classification] : infringement of trademark rights disputes

[Commissioned time] : April 2015

【 Brief introduction 】

"XX" is a registered trademark applied by the plaintiff to the State Administration of Industry and Commerce and approved, the trademark registration number is XXXXXXX, approved in Class 1 glass glue and curtain wall glue, valid from August 14, 1997 to August 13, 2017. The plaintiff found in a market in Shanghai that some merchants sold sealant printed on the packaging of the plaintiff's company "XX" registered trademark and factory name, but it was not the plaintiff's own production or authorized production of products, which were counterfeit products using the plaintiff's registered trademark and factory name. On July 26, 2014, the plaintiff entrusted the notary office to carry out the purchase notarization to the defendant's office, and to preserve the evidence of the defendant's infringement. In order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff, the appeal is to the court.

【 Lawyer analysis 】

The exclusive right to use a trademark enjoyed by a trademark registrant shall be protected by law. Without the permission of the trademark registrant, the use of a trademark identical to its registered trademark on the same kind of goods, or the use of a trademark similar to its registered trademark on the same kind of goods and is likely to cause confusion, shall be an act of infringement of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark. The sale of goods that infringe upon the exclusive right to use a registered trademark shall also constitute an infringement of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark. The sealant sold by the defendant and the plaintiff registered trademark No. XXXXXXX approved the use of the same category of goods, belong to the same kind of goods. The logo used on the outer package of the sealant involved in the case is compared with the plaintiff's registered trademark No. XXXXXXX, and there is basically no visual difference between the two. The sealant involved in the case is an infringing commodity using the same trademark as the plaintiff's registered trademark on the same kind of commodity. At the same time, the logo used on the single outer package of the sealant involved in the case is compared with the plaintiff's registered trademark No. XXXXXXX. Except for the absence of two words "XX", the pinyin, graphic composition and the overall structure after the combination of various elements are basically the same. The two are visually similar, which is easy to lead to confusion. Therefore, the sealant involved in the case is an infringing commodity that uses a trademark similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark on the same commodity.

As a seller, the defendant should abide by national laws and normal market operation order, purchase goods from regular channels to ensure that the goods sold to consumers in the store have no rights and defects. However, the defendant did not fulfill the seller's duty of care, selling infringing products without legal sources, its subjectively there is fault, its behavior violates the relevant provisions of China's trademark law, is an infringement of the exclusive right to use registered trademarks, and should bear civil liabilities such as compensation.

【 Verdict 】

After lawyer Chen Zhijuan's representation, the court finally supported the plaintiff's claim and ordered the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for economic losses and reasonable expenses within 10 days from the effective date of this judgment.