LACOSTE crocodile (French brand)
All trademark infringements will be liquidated sooner or later
Perspective on the "Crocodile" dispute
Xinhua Online Shanghai Channel reporter Ye Guobiao and Shen Wenmin
The "French crocodile" and the "Singapore crocodile" are fighting again.
In March 2004, the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate Court ordered the French Lacoste Shirt Co., Ltd. ("French Crocodile") to infringe Singapore Crocodile International Institutions Pte. Ltd. ("Singapore Crocodile"). Copyright, compensation of US$1 is required. On July 12 this year, the famous "$1 crocodile lawsuit" stirred up trouble again. The Shanghai High Court revoked the first-instance verdict "on the grounds that the court was not suitable to accept the case." The case became more complicated and unpredictable.
Is there a blind spot in the protection of intellectual property rights?
The Shanghai High Court’s decision obviously excited French Crocodile. On July 12, French Crocodile held a press conference to announce the good news of "victory". The media also made reports that "the French crocodile turned over and the Singaporean crocodile lost the lawsuit."
However, on July 17, at a press conference held by the Singapore Crocodile Organization, Hong Wenzhan, Chairman of Singapore Crocodile International Institutions Pte. Ltd., said that the Singapore Crocodile "lost the case" and the French Crocodile "won the case" and reports, which is a "misreading" of the judgment of the second instance court.
Lacoste Shanghai Authorized Store
As attorneys for Singapore Crocodile, Professor Tao Xinliang, Dean of the School of Intellectual Property of Shanghai University, and Zhang Ping, Associate Professor of Peking University Law School, pointed out: The court of second instance concluded that "in During the trademark authorization procedure, if a party only claims to protect copyright because others use its works when applying for registration of a trademark, it should be resolved through the opposition and other relief procedures stipulated in the Trademark Law, and the People's Court should not accept the case. The court hears cases based on two aspects: one is to review the substantive content based on legal facts; the other is to review procedural fairness and procedural legality based on procedural law. The court of second instance made a procedural ruling rather than a substantive change of judgment, and did not substantively say that the French crocodile did not infringe copyright.
Tao Xinliang and Zhang Ping also believe that the opposition and other relief procedures stipulated in the Trademark Law only solve the vertical administrative issue of "whether to grant trademark rights" and cannot deal with the horizontal infringement of copyright during the trademark application process. civil infringement issues. Therefore, horizontal civil infringement disputes that occur simultaneously during the trademark application process can only be resolved through horizontal civil litigation and other means. According to the judgment logic of the second-instance court, the horizontal civil infringement disputes that occurred simultaneously during the trademark application process have become an outcast, and the intellectual property protection system has thus formed a blind spot. Therefore, the second-instance court's ruling that it was "unsuitable to accept the case" itself was also "unsuitable" according to law. At the same time, "unsuitable" is probably not a legal language, and the first-instance judgment of this case cannot be directly revoked simply based on the non-mandatory, non-legal word "unsuitable".
Associate Professor Zhang Ping told reporters that the court will accept cases where some companies maliciously register other people's domain names. In this case of Singapore Crocodile v. French Crocodile for copyright infringement, the Shanghai High Court revoked the first-instance judgment on the grounds that it was "unsuitable to accept the case," which is "worthy of discussion." In terms of intellectual property protection in my country, there are still "gray areas" and relevant laws and regulations need to be further improved and improved.
Hong Wenzhan said that the judgment of the second instance court did not stop the dispute and settle the matter. Instead, it caused "misunderstanding" from the outside world and deepened the contradiction between the two parties. Singapore Crocodile reserves the right to continue to lodge complaints with the relevant authorities.
The two "crocodiles" have a long-standing feud
The brand dispute between French crocodile and Singaporean crocodile can be traced back to more than 30 years ago. The "$1 lawsuit" is just one of their problems in the Chinese market in recent years. A "bite".
In 1947, Chen Xianjin, a Malaysian Chinese native of Shantou, Guangdong, created a work with the English italicized character "Crocodile" and a crocodile picture and text. In the work, the crocodile's head is facing to the left, its tail is upturned, its body is slender, and its mouth is slightly open. Soon, this crocodile graphic work was approved as a registered trademark by the Singaporean authorities.
Crocodile Shanghai Authorized Store
The French crocodile was born in 1933. Its body is green, its head is to the right, its body is thick, its mouth is open and sharp teeth are exposed, and its body parts Embedded "Lacoste" lettering in black. The "Father of the French Crocodile" is the French tennis star Rene Lacoste, who has won the world tennis championship and is nicknamed "Mr. Crocodile".
In the early days, the "crocodiles" of European origin and the "crocodiles" of Asian origin lived in harmony. However, in the 1960s and 1970s, with the expansion of the two "crocodiles", especially the French crocodile entering the Asian market, they met on a narrow road and became aware of each other's existence and the threat they posed to themselves. Immediately, the lawsuit between the two "crocodiles" continued.
The first legal battle between two "crocodiles" started in Japan in 1969. Singapore Crocodile sued French Crocodile for trademark infringement. French Crocodile believed that "there are significant differences between the two trademarks" and won. In 1980, Singapore Crocodile issued a legal letter to French Crocodile's dealers in Singapore regarding the use of the crocodile icon by French Crocodile.
The long-term fight made the two "crocodiles" tired. They gradually realized that since the two sides looked very different (courts in various places also unanimously recognized this difference), continuing to fight would only be a waste of resources. , both sides suffer losses, why not recognize each other and live together peacefully? In 1983, the two "crocodiles" shook hands and signed a survival agreement: mutual recognition of trademarks; an end to all legal disputes, and an agreement to work together to combat other trademark infringers; the agreement covers Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia and China 5 markets in Taiwan; and indicate that it still applies to other countries and regions where the two companies will survive and develop. In 1985, the survival agreement was extended to India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and South Korea.
Why was the "honeymoon" so short
However, the "honeymoon" did not last long. As the two "crocodiles" seized the huge potential of the Chinese mainland market, they already had grudges. The two sides started fighting again.
Perhaps it is because it has learned the lessons of being passive in many Asian markets in the past due to slow pace, or because the Chinese market with huge potential is too attractive. As early as 1980, French Crocodile was the first to take the lead. The crocodile trademark has been registered in mainland China. The Singapore crocodile did not apply for trademark registration to the China National Trademark Office until 1993. In this regard, the French crocodile immediately expressed objections. French Crocodile sued Singapore Crocodile for trademark infringement four times in Beijing and Shanghai. As a result, Singapore Crocodile's trademark registration went through a long journey of 12 years. It was not until the end of June 2005 that it finally passed the National Trademark Office and the trademark review and adjudication agency. recognition and registration completed. During this period, French Crocodile has been claiming that because Singapore Crocodile has not registered the crocodile trademark in mainland China, it sells products with the crocodile logo in the Chinese mainland market, which infringes French Crocodile's exclusive trademark rights in mainland China.
In 1995, French Crocodile applied to register the Singapore crocodile pattern as a trademark for cosmetics in China. Obviously, this gives the Singapore Crocodiles a strong chance to counterattack. In 2002, the Singapore Crocodile took the French Crocodile to court on the grounds of copyright infringement, demanding an end to the infringement, an apology in the newspaper, and a compensation of US$1. In March 2004, the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court supported the Singapore Crocodile's lawsuit in the first instance.
Is the real enemy the other party or the fake "Crocodile"
Philippe Lacoste, grandson of French Crocodile founder Henri Lacoste and responsible for global public relations Zeng revealed to the media in Shanghai that the reason why French Crocodile applied for a registered trademark for cosmetics products using the pattern of Singaporean Crocodile was purely for defensive purposes and was not intended to be used.
Hong Wenzhan told reporters that when the two parties signed a deposit agreement in 1983, French Crocodile deliberately concealed the fact that it had registered a trademark in mainland China in 1980, so the deposit agreement did not include the Chinese mainland market. incorporated. In 1985, when French crocodiles entered the Indian market, Singapore crocodiles, which had been registered in India as early as 1952, issued a "letter of consent" to help French crocodiles successfully register in India. In the past, when French crocodiles entered the traditional sphere of influence of Singaporean crocodiles, Singaporean crocodiles basically adopted a stance of tolerance and survival. However, when the Singaporean crocodile entered the Chinese market, the French crocodile interfered in every possible way, with the obvious intention of monopolizing the Chinese market and squeezing out the Singaporean crocodile.
Hong Wenzhan expressed his confusion about the French crocodile's approach: Two "crocodiles" can still survive in Singapore with a population of only 5 million. Why are they not compatible in the Chinese market with a population of 1.3 billion?
It is understood that although French Crocodile was the first to register a trademark in mainland China as early as 1980, it was not until 1995 that it opened its first store in Shanghai and established a factory in Pudong. There are hundreds of specialty stores. Although Singapore Crocodile experienced a difficult journey of 12 years due to interference from French Crocodile in trademark registration, it has been making rapid progress in market expansion. After landing in the Chinese market in 1993, Singapore Crocodile quickly established more than 1,500 stores covering the country, and established factories in Shenyang, Suzhou and other places. Over the past 12 years, the cumulative sales of crocodile clothing and other authorized products in Singapore have reached 6 billion yuan. The mainland Chinese market accounts for 30% of the global sales of Singapore crocodiles. Recently, Singapore Crocodile invested another 120 million yuan to build a global headquarters building in Shanghai, and plans to move its global strategic center to Shanghai in 2006.
Industry experts pointed out that in fact, Singaporean crocodiles and French crocodiles not only "look different", but also have very different market positionings. Singaporean crocodiles mainly sell mid-to-high-end business and casual clothing, while French crocodiles sell... Mainly high-end sports and leisure clothing. Today, both "crocodiles" have obtained trademark registration in China, and both are recognized by consumers and protected by law. The Chinese market is so big that both parties have no worries about finding room for development. Perhaps the enemy of the two "crocodiles" is not each other, but counterfeit "crocodiles" are flooding the market right now.
Enlightenment: You must be good at competition, but also understand "competition and cooperation"
The protracted trademark dispute between the two "crocodiles" has attracted widespread attention from the media and the public at home and abroad.
Although there are tit-for-tat confrontations in court, when it comes to the significance of this dispute, Tao Xinliang, the attorney for Singapore Crocodile, and Huang Hui, the attorney for French Crocodile, have the same views. They believe that these are two Regarding the legal conflicts that arose after a well-known foreign trademark entered the Chinese market, the court’s final judgment will provide effective practical help for new intellectual property issues arising in the context of economic globalization.
Zhang Ping, an intellectual property expert and associate professor at Peking University Law School, analyzed that driven by the wave of economic globalization, many foreign companies "come in" and many Chinese companies "go out", involving disputes over intellectual property rights. increasing day by day. If Chinese enterprises want to become bigger and stronger and have long-term stability, they must take the road of independent innovation, create and maintain their own brands, and have independent intellectual property rights. Any counterfeiting or "free ride" behavior may make them cheap in front of them, but it will definitely take the path of independent innovation. Not far. In addition, enterprises must have a broad mind and vision that require survival, development, and cooperation. They must be good at competition and understand "competition and cooperation." Instead of fighting each other and being incompatible, it is better to seek common ground while reserving differences and seeking development.
(End)