Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court disclosed yesterday that Victoria’s Secret Store Brand Management Company, the owner of the world’s famous women’s underwear brand “VICTORIASSECRET” (Chinese name: Victoria’s Secret), sued Shanghai Maxi Investment Management Co., Ltd.’s trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute case came to an end in the first instance. The court’s trademark rejection review ordered the defendant Max Company to stop the trademark infringement and unfair competition behavior of false propaganda, compensate for economic losses of 500,000 yuan, and issue a statement to eliminate the impact.

It is reported that "VICTORIASSECRET", founded in the 1970s, is positioned as mid-to-high-end underwear, bras, etc., and has always been deeply loved by women all over the world. Victoria's Secret has registered product trademarks and service trademarks in the trademark transactions "VICTORIASSECRET" and "Victoria's Secret" respectively. Without authorization, Max Company has prominently used the "VICTORIASSECRET" logo on various occasions such as the door signs of the stores it operates, employee name badges, and underwear and fashion exhibitions held. In addition, on China Women's Wear Network, Sina Weibo, WeChat and other online platforms, Max Company also calls it Victoria's Secret China Operations Company, China Headquarters, etc., and carries out franchise sales activities.

Victoria's Secret believes that Max's behavior constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition, so it filed a lawsuit to stop the infringement, compensate for losses of 5.1 million yuan, and prominently place the lawsuit on the home page of relevant urban media and China Women's Clothing Network. Issue a written statement to eliminate the impact of its infringement.

After the trial, the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court held that the defendant not only used the Yiwu patent application “VICTORIASSECRET” logo on store door signs, store walls, etc., but also used it at the checkout counter, employee badges, VIP cards, fashion exhibitions, etc. The defendant actively claimed that it was a Victoria's Secret Shanghai direct-operated store, China headquarters, etc., which was enough to cause the public to misunderstand that the plaintiff and defendant had trademark licenses.

The defendant’s false propaganda allowed it to unfairly gain a competitive advantage, and the selling price of the defendant’s store was much higher than the selling price of similar products on the plaintiff’s official website, which would have an impact on the plaintiff’s future commercial activities in China. The court found that the defendant constituted unfair competition.

The court then awarded the defendant 500,000 yuan in compensation.