With the conspicuous flower-shaped pattern and the eye-catching words "Montagut", people may think that they are in a store of the famous French brand "Montagut". However, the word "Meizheng" under the flower-shaped pattern revealed the true identity of the counterfeiter. Today, such stores no longer exist. In 2003, the real owners of the famous brand "Montagut" launched a massive anti-counterfeiting operation. Those who used officially registered companies and trademarks to "imitate famous brands" also became their targets, and lawsuits were theirs. important weapon. "The trial of the case lasted for more than a year, and the entire collegial panel spent a lot of energy. Looking back now, the successful trial of this case and the wide-ranging social impact it has produced make us judges feel gratified and protect intellectual property rights and maintain fair competition. The economic order has a heavy responsibility," said the judge Lu Weimin.
"Montagut" blooms in mainland China
French Bonnetry Severnol Co., Ltd., a company with a strange and difficult-to-pronounce name, has a brand that is almost a household name: Montagnard.
As early as 1925, Bonnetry Severnolle Company began operating in France and has a long-standing reputation for its clothing design, manufacturing and sales. From 1980 to 1985, the company registered the "MONTAGUT" and "Flower Graphic" trademarks in multiple categories in France, and successively registered them in more than 80 countries and regions around the world, including mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and other places. the trademark. Since 1986, the company has registered four Chinese trademarks in mainland China: "Montagut", "MONTAGUT+Flower Design", and "Flower Graphic Design", all of which are within the validity period.
As one of the first world-famous fashion brands to enter the Chinese people's attention, clothing marked with "MONTAGUT" and flower-shaped pattern trademarks have been loved by fashion-conscious people as soon as they entered the Chinese market. As a result, a large number of shoddy counterfeit products with unknown origins have emerged one after another, making waves in the market at low prices. Suddenly, thousands of peach blossoms bloomed, and the real owner of the Montagut brand suffered a double loss of economic interests and brand reputation.
Due to my country’s increasing efforts to protect intellectual property rights, this kind of blatant “counterfeiting” has since gradually converged, and counterfeiters have begun to shift from “counterfeiting” to “counterfeiting”. Some even go to great lengths to try to use seemingly legal means to stay on the edge of legal sanctions.
Anti-counterfeiting and counterfeiting found “one-stop service”
Since 2001, a large number of products with the names “Montagut”, “MONTAGUT”, “Flower Graphic Design”, etc. have appeared in markets across the country Clothing products with logos that are very similar to the trademark.
On July 25, 2002, a "Montaggiot Plum Steam" specialty store in Hefei, Anhui Province was investigated and punished by the local industrial and commercial department; on April 26, 2002, the industrial and commercial department based on the French Bonnetry Severnolle Co., Ltd.’s report, two companies, Shanghai Meizheng and Changshu Haoteba, were investigated and punished. Shanghai Meizheng confiscated 1,694 pieces of infringing clothing and was fined 7,000 yuan; Changshu Haoteba confiscated 177 sets of infringing trademarks and was fined 18,000 yuan. Yuan.
Through these anti-counterfeiting operations, it was found that brothers Gan Chuanmeng and Gan Chuanfei, who were doing clothing business in Shanghai, took advantage of the convenience of registering business names in Hong Kong to register and establish a company called "Montaggio Meizi (Hong Kong) Clothing Co., Ltd." "Enterprise, it then authorized Shanghai Meizheng Clothing Co., Ltd. established by Gan Chuanmeng in Shanghai to sell "Meizheng" brand clothing in the country through trademark transfer and authorization, and Shanghai Meizheng handed over all production to Changshu Hao Teba Company is responsible.
The "Meizheng" trademark consists of the word "Meizheng", the pinyin letter "Meizheng" and a petal graphic. Compared with the petal graphic of "Montejiao", the petal graphic in the "Meizheng" trademark is only less The leaves and stems below the petals. In order to achieve the purpose of confusion, the color of the pinyin letters of "Meizheng" on the clothing is often close to the color of the clothing itself, while the color of the petals is very conspicuous. From a distance, it looks like a "Monttaggio" flower.
At the same time, in the Shanghai Meizi Company's specialty store, shelves, price tags, and clothing packaging bags with the Hong Kong company name "Montagut Meizi" can be seen everywhere, but "Montagut" is always prominent. position, and the word "Meizheng" can be hidden and hidden.
The facts of the case are complicated
At the end of 2002, the French Bonnet Trisevenol Co., Ltd. transferred Montagut Meizi (Hong Kong) Clothing Co., Ltd., Shanghai Meizi Company, Changshu Hao Teba Company and its respective legal representatives all went to court, believing that they had committed trademark infringement and unfair competition, and demanded compensation for economic losses.
The Municipal No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court, which accepted the case, formed a collegial panel, and the judge was Lu Weimin, who was then the deputy chief judge of the Fifth Civil Tribunal. "There are six defendants in this case, both entities and individuals. The defendants' infringements are complex and overlapping, and the plaintiff's complaint is not only for trademark infringement, but also involves unfair competition." Although many years have passed, for the The facts of the case are still fresh in Lu Weimin’s memory.
He said that because intellectual property cases are usually highly professional and novel in nature, even if many parties hire lawyers, they often encounter weakly targeted claims and evidence during the trial. problem.
As far as this case is concerned, the original plaintiff’s complaint was too general. Taking the trademark infringement claim as an example, since the plaintiff has registered *** 4 trademarks in my country, including "Montagut", "Flower Graphics" and two different combinations of "MONTAGUT and Flower Graphics", the defendant has used more than 100 logos. One, so the plaintiff must make it clear which of the defendant’s logos infringes upon which of the plaintiff’s trademark rights. It cannot make a general claim of trademark infringement and let the court make the distinction. The same is true for claims of unfair competition.
After the court’s public explanation in accordance with the law, the plaintiff finally made this clear in the indictment.