Recently, the Fujian Higher People's Court made a second-instance judgment on the trademark infringement dispute case in which Li Ning Sports (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Li Ning Company) sued Quanzhou Haoai Shoes & Clothing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Haoai Shoes & Clothing Company), and found that the trademark No.18359155 (hereinafter referred to as the trademark involved) used by Haoai Shoes & Clothing Company as a mirror image on the sports shoes it produced and sold was the same as the trademark No.765515 (hereinafter referred to as Li Ning Company) Li Ning Company's exclusive right to use the registered trademark was infringed, and Haoai Shoes & Clothing Company had to stop the infringement and compensate Li Ning Company for its economic loss of 2, yuan, thus revoking the first-instance judgment made by the court of first instance that Haoai Shoes & Clothing Company did not constitute trademark infringement.
The first instance of suing for infringement is a setback
Li Ning Company was founded in 199 by Li Ning, who is known as the "Prince of gymnastics". After years of development, it has become one of the leading sports brand companies in China. In the process of enterprise development, Li Ning Company applied for the registration of a number of trademarks, including rights trademarks, and was approved for use in the 25th category of shoes, sports shoes and other commodities.
In March, 22, Li Ning Company found that the relevant logos on the sports shoes sold by Haoai Shoes and Clothing Company through the online platform were similar to the right trademark, which was suspected of trademark infringement. Therefore, Li Ning Company purchased the above-mentioned sports shoes through notarization. After on-site comparison, the pattern printed on one side of the sneaker is the trademark involved in the case held by Xiamen Zhenmu Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhenmu Company), and the other side is the mirror image logo of the trademark (hereinafter referred to as the accused logo). Li Ning Company believes that the accused logo is similar to the right trademark and is suspected of trademark infringement. Subsequently, Li Ning Company sued Maliai Shoes and Clothing Company to Quanzhou Intermediate People's Court of Fujian Province (hereinafter referred to as Quanzhou Intermediate People's Court) with a complaint, requesting the court to order the other party to stop the infringement and compensate the economic losses of 6, yuan.
For Li Ning's lawsuit, Haoai Shoes & Clothing Company argues that the trademark on the sports shoes involved in the case it sells is a registered trademark, which is not similar to the registered trademark of Li Ning Company and does not constitute infringement.
Quanzhou Intermediate People's Court pointed out in the first-instance judgment that according to the trademark file provided by Haoai Shoes & Clothing Company, the trademark involved was a trademark applied for registration by Zhenmu Company, and Li Ning Company did not claim that the sports shoes sold by Haoai Shoes & Clothing Company were marked with the trademark involved, which infringed on its exclusive right to use a registered trademark. However, one side of the sports shoes sold by Haoai Shoes & Clothing Company is marked with the same logo as the trademark involved in the application for registration by Zhenmu Company. Therefore, Haoai Shoes & Clothing Company sells sports shoes with the same logo as the trademark involved, which does not infringe on the exclusive right to use the registered trademark of Li Ning Company. In addition, due to the particularity of footwear products, because each shoe has two sides and each pair of shoes has its own left and right feet, footwear products need to print mirror images when printing logos, and the accused logo is a mirror image use of the trademark involved, which infringes on the exclusive right of registered trademarks of Li Ning Company.
after the judgment of the first instance, Li Ning Company refused to accept it and appealed to Fujian High Court. The main appeal reason was that the premise of using any trademark and logo was not to infringe upon the trademark rights of others. A registered trademark or unregistered figure, whether elongated, upside down or tilted, can only be used so as not to confuse others and mistakenly think that it originated from others or has a specific connection with their trademarks. Whether it is mirror image, upside down or oblique use, once the original characteristics of the trademark are changed, it will be confused with the registered trademark of others, which constitutes infringement. Therefore, malicious love shoes and clothing company constitutes trademark infringement.
Haoai Shoes & Clothing Company insists that there is no infringement.
After hearing the case, Fujian High Court made the above judgment and revoked the judgment of first instance.
We should fulfill the obligation of avoidance
What is the reason for the court of second instance to change the judgment of this lawsuit caused by the mirror image use of trademarks?
In this regard, Yuan Chunyi, the presiding judge of the second instance of the case, introduced in an interview with China Intellectual Property News that the right trademark evolved from the initials "L" of the company's founder Li Ning, and was designed to be artistic. The accused logo used by Haoai Shoes & Clothing Company is also composed of two artistic parts: one left and one right. The only difference is that there is a small tick in the upper right corner of one left. The relative position, angle and thickness change of the accused logo components are basically consistent with the right trademark. When the accused infringing logo is used in footwear products, on the whole, it is difficult for the relevant public to notice the difference of small hooks. Therefore, the design style and visual effect of the accused infringing logo are slightly different from those of the right trademark, which is easy to cause confusion and misunderstanding among relevant consumers and constitutes an approximate trademark.
As for the claim that the accused logo is a mirror image of the trademark involved, Yuan Chunyi said that according to Article 56 of China's Trademark Law and Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Supreme People's Court's Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Civil Disputes over Registered Trademarks, Enterprise Names and Prior Rights, trademark owners should regulate the exercise of their rights according to the registered trademark and the approved scope of use. The use beyond the scope of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark is essentially an abuse of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark. If the use beyond the scope invades the scope of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark of others, it also constitutes infringement. Therefore, if the trademark used by the trademark owner beyond the scope is the same as or similar to the registered trademark of others, it also constitutes trademark infringement. In addition, the use of trademarks in mirror image does not belong to the exclusive right to use registered trademarks, and the use of trademarks in mirror image on footwear products is a common practice in the industry, but it is not necessary. Therefore, reasonable care and avoidance obligations should be fulfilled when using registered trademarks in mirror image.
"Back to this case, the use of the accused logo by Haoai Shoes & Clothing Company obviously changed the distinctive features of the registered trademark of Zhenmu Company, which was not legal and standardized, and constituted a trademark similar to the right trademark, not to mention that Haoai Shoes & Clothing Company admitted that it had not been authorized by Zhenmu Company. Therefore, the use of the accused logo by Hao Ai Shoes and Clothing Company also constitutes an infringement of the exclusive right to use the registered trademark of Li Ning Company. " Yuan Chunyi introduced.