After trademark rights are infringed, the company will suffer immeasurable losses in terms of reputation, market share, brand image, etc. Of course, the protection of trademarks by trademark law will bring benefits to the company in this regard, and also Compensation from litigation is also a large amount of income. Below are two cases.

The French "Crocodile" sued Beijing Urban and Rural Trade Center and others for infringement of registered trademark rights

The trademark administration of the "CARTELO three-color CROCODILE picture" caused by the Singaporean "Crocodile" and the French "Crocodile" The case has not yet been settled. The Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court has filed another case to accept the case of Lacoste Co., Ltd., a French "crocodile" manufacturer, against Guangzhou Taicrocodile Clothing Co., Ltd., Beijing Nianniangao Clothing Co., Ltd., and Beijing Urban and Rural Trade. A case involving disputes over infringement of registered trademark rights by Center Co., Ltd.

The plaintiff accused the defendant of producing or selling "Golden Crocodile" brand clothing with the French "Crocodile" trademark graphics. It is reported that this is one of a series of French "crocodile" rights protection cases. Previously, the French "crocodile" had sued an intermediate court in Xidan Sete Mall for selling suspected infringement of Singaporean "crocodile" belts.

The plaintiff in this case, Lacoste SA, is a French company and the trademark registrant and manufacturer of the world-famous brand "Crocodile". On July 21, 2006, Lacoste filed a lawsuit with Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court, stating that in early April 2005, it discovered that Beijing Nian Niang Gao Clothing Co., Ltd. had set up shop in many shopping malls, including Beijing Urban and Rural Trade Center Co., Ltd. Operating a counter, selling "Golden Crocodile" brand clothing produced by the first defendant, Guangzhou Taicrocodile Clothing Co., Ltd., with the plaintiff's trademark "Crocodile" graphic, infringing on the trademark rights of its well-known trademark "Crocodile", this behavior has been The Haidian District Industrial and Commercial Bureau investigated and dealt with the matter. Lacoste believes that the actions of the three defendants have constituted an infringement of its registered trademark rights, causing serious losses to it, greatly damaging its business reputation, diluting and damaging its well-known "Crocodile" brand image. Therefore, the lawsuit was brought to the court, requesting an order to order the three defendants to immediately stop infringing the plaintiff's exclusive trademark rights, compensate for economic losses of 1 million yuan, and publish a newspaper to eliminate the impact of the infringement. The case was filed for acceptance on July 21 and has not yet been heard in court.

The administrative case brought by France’s “Crocodile” against the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce is currently being heard by the Intellectual Property Court of the First Intermediate People’s Court, and the first-instance judgment has not yet been made. On May 30, 2005, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce issued the "Reexamination Ruling on the Objection to the CARTELO and Picture Trademark No. 1331001", holding that the "CARTELO three-color CROCODILE picture" of Singapore's "Crocodile" is different from the French "Crocodile" "There are obvious differences between the trademarks, and it was ruled that French Crocodile's "reason for review of objection was not established." The French "Crocodile" was dissatisfied with the ruling of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, and filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court with the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board as the defendant. It believed that the French "Crocodile" had registered the "Crocodile" pattern trademark in China as early as 1983, and the Singaporean "Crocodile" applied for registration. The trademarks constitute similar trademarks on the same trademark, and the trademark applied for registration by "Crocodile" in Singapore should not be approved for registration. Therefore, the court is requested to order to revoke the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board's ruling.

In the Chinese market, there have been many products with the "crocodile" trademark. These include the French "Crocodile", the Singaporean "Crocodile", the Hong Kong "Crocodile" and the Zhejiang "Crocodile". In 2003, under the auspices of the Beijing Higher People's Court, the Hong Kong "Crocodile" and the French "Crocodile" reached a settlement agreement. The Hong Kong "Crocodile" promised to stop using trademarks similar to the French "Crocodile" after 2006. In 2005, Zhejiang Crocodile and French Crocodile also reached a settlement agreement, promising to stop using any "Crocodile" graphic trademark after the grace period.

Singapore's "Crocodile" and France's "Crocodile" have reached an agreement on the use of the "Crocodile" trademark in five countries and regions: Singapore, Taiwan, Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei. France's "Crocodile" recognizes that Singapore's "Crocodile" is registered in the above-mentioned countries and regions. For the "Crocodile" trademark, the French "Crocodile" paid a trademark license fee of US$1 million to the Singaporean "Crocodile", allowing the French "Crocodile" to sell products with the "Crocodile" trademark in the above-mentioned countries and regions. However, the agreement did not include China included.

The famous brand "LV" sells for only 100 yuan, and a shopping mall in Beijing compensated 150,000 yuan for selling counterfeit goods

On the morning of April 17, the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court sued France's Louis Vuitton Marie The case of Ti Company against Beijing Chaowaimen Shopping Mall Co., Ltd. for infringement of registered trademark exclusive rights and unfair competition was publicly announced. The first trial ordered the defendant to immediately stop the infringement and compensate the plaintiff for economic losses of RMB 150,000.

The priceless Louis Vuitton leather bag was sold for only more than 100 yuan at the "Chaowai MEN Shopping Center". However, not long after the mall agreed to rectify the counterfeit merchants, the staff of the Louis Vuitton company... I bought this fake product at the same place and at the same price. The French Louis Vuitton Maliti Company then took Beijing Chaowaimen Shopping Mall Co., Ltd. to court, requesting compensation of more than 1.1 million yuan.

The plaintiff, French Louis Vuitton Maliti, claimed that the plaintiff has three trademark registrations in China according to law. In September 2005, under the supervision of the notary office, the company's staff purchased a counterfeit "LV" bag on the basement floor of the "Chaowai MEN Shopping Center" for more than 100 yuan. At the same time, the plaintiff also discovered that a large "LV" advertisement was hung on the exterior wall of the shopping mall. Nine days later, Louis Vuitton sent a letter to the defendant requesting it to stop selling counterfeit goods. The next day, the shopping mall responded to the letter saying that it had taken measures to stop the sale of counterfeit products. However, a month later, the plaintiff purchased 21 counterfeit "LV" bags on the basement floor of "Chaowai MEN".

Louis Vuitton believes that the large number of counterfeit sales on the basement floor of "Chaowai MEN" has constituted an infringement of the exclusive right to register a trademark. These infringing products use unique packaging and decoration that are the same or similar to those of the plaintiff's "LV" leather products without authorization, which constitutes unfair competition. Moreover, the defendant used large advertising pictures of the "LV" trademark in advertisements outside the shopping malls it operated and managed, which was false propaganda and constituted unfair competition.

Beijing Chaowaimen Shopping Mall Co., Ltd. argued that the venues on the basement floor are independently operated by each merchant. After receiving the letter to cease infringement, the company rectified the underground floor and removed the outdoor advertisements in a timely manner. The mall has fulfilled its management, supervision and rectification obligations.

The court found after trial that the plaintiff’s trademark registered in China enjoys exclusive trademark rights. "Chaowai MEN Shopping Center" is a wholesale market commercial enterprise run by the defendant. It is divided into three floors above ground and one underground floor. It officially started operations on April 27, 2005. There is no area in the "Chaowai MEN Shopping Center" where the defendant operates (sales) on its own. All merchants rent the space and operate (sell) on their own. Most of the stalls have copies of the individual business licenses of the merchants hanging outside. Among them, the one on the basement floor is Bags and leather goods area.

In the luggage and leather goods area on the ground floor of the "Chaowai MEN Shopping Center" run by the defendant, there was a large number of sales of goods bearing the plaintiff's registered trademark involved. These goods are similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark involved in the case, and are sold at extremely low prices. The price and quality are quite different from the plaintiff's products. The defendant has no objection to the fact that these goods are counterfeit goods with the plaintiff's registered trademark involved in the case. Therefore, the court determined that these goods are counterfeit. The plaintiff was involved in the case of infringing goods with registered trademarks.

As the operator of the "Chaowai MEN Shopping Center", the defendant signed a "Venue Lease Contract" with the merchants selling the infringing goods involved in the case. According to the stipulations of the contract, the defendant leased the corresponding space of "Chaowai MEN Shopping Center" to merchants, collected rent, and conducted operation and management. Therefore, the defendant not only has the right but also the obligation to manage the market and supervise the types and quality of goods sold by merchants. In particular, the defendant should stop and put an end to the production and sale of counterfeit goods.

my country’s Trademark Law stipulates that those who intentionally provide warehousing, transportation, mailing, concealment and other convenient conditions for infringement of other people’s exclusive rights to registered trademarks also constitute infringement of other people’s exclusive rights to registered trademarks. In this case, the Beijing Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce of the People's Republic of China issued a ban on the sale of goods bearing the plaintiff's registered trademark involved in the case in clothing and small commodity markets within the Beijing area six months before the opening of the "Chaowai MEN Shopping Center". Therefore, the defendant should clearly know that the market it operates, operates and manages is not allowed to sell goods bearing the plaintiff’s registered trademark involved in the case. The fact that the plaintiff twice purchased the infringing goods involved in the case on the basement floor of "Chaowai MEN Shopping Center" shows that the defendant failed to fulfill its business management responsibilities and supervision responsibilities, and was subjectively at fault. Moreover, the plaintiff had sent a letter to the defendant to negotiate after the first notarized purchase. However, after that, the plaintiff still notarized and purchased the infringing goods involved in the case from numerous merchants on the basement floor of the "Chaowai MEN Shopping Center" during the second notarized purchase. , indicating that the defendant’s subjective fault for failing to fulfill its management and supervision responsibilities is relatively serious. Therefore, it should be determined that the defendant provided convenience for the merchants involved in the case to sell infringing goods, which is an act that infringes on the exclusive rights of the plaintiff’s registered trademark, and the defendant should bear corresponding responsibilities according to law. .

The amount of compensation for economic losses and reasonable litigation expenses proposed by the plaintiff is too high. The court will comprehensively consider the nature of the defendant’s infringement, the degree of the defendant’s subjective fault, the reasonable degree of economic losses suffered by the plaintiff due to the defendant’s infringement, Factors such as the reasonableness and necessity of the plaintiff's expenses determine the specific amount that the defendant should bear to compensate the plaintiff for economic losses and reasonable litigation expenses. Accordingly, the court made the above judgment.