Intellectual property rights are a basic right that is increasingly valued in society, and relevant laws and regulations have also formulated more regulations and norms for intellectual property rights. In today's society, due to the huge temptation of interests, many people or companies often choose to take desperate risks, still disregarding relevant laws and regulations, and infringing on the rights of others. Among them, brand and trademark rights are an important part of intellectual property rights. Lepin was awarded 30 million yuan in compensation by the court

On April 1, the Guangdong Provincial Higher People’s Court made the final judgment on Lego’s lawsuit against Lepin for trademark infringement. This case went through two trials. The first trial determined that Lepin had engaged in unfair competition involving trademark infringement. In the second trial, it was held that Lepin’s malicious infringement of other people’s trademarks was bad and he would be severely punished for compensation. In the end, it was determined that Lepin could pay 30 million yuan for various losses like Lego. And why is Lepin’s behavior so serious? Lepin’s infringement has had a bad impact.

First of all, it is not difficult to see from the trademarks of Lepin and Lego that they are very similar. Compared with Lepin, Lego has already had considerable popularity and market share in the market very early. After operating for a long time, it has gained the support and trust of the masses. This time, in order to take advantage of its existing popularity, Le has highly imitated its own trademark, thereby misleading consumers' consumption behavior and seriously affecting market operations. This behavior has had an extremely bad impact on the market, and has also brought huge losses to the LEGO brand, including reputation and revenue. Therefore, Lepin’s sentence was not excessive. LEGO's infringement ignores the law.

At the same time, in accordance with corresponding laws and regulations, the state clearly protects individual and collective intellectual property rights. Lepin’s behavior was based on knowing the legal regulations and still infringed on Lego’s trademark rights. This kind of behavior that violates the law shows contempt for the law and disrespect for the market. If the operation of a company is based on trampling the law, then the products produced by the company will be difficult to convince the majority of consumer groups. So, what do you think of Lepin’s penalty this time?