Nike Resolutely Crackdown In China To Safeguard Legal Rights And Interests

The huge contrast between the export price of 20 yuan and the claim amount of 200 yuan.

In all 4 cases, all the defendants violated it.

The facts of trademark rights are recognized.

However, there are serious differences between the two parties on the critical amount of compensation.

The amount of compensation raised by the plaintiff Nike company is relatively high, of which the total compensation for 1440 pairs of sports shoes is 300 thousand yuan, with an average of more than 200 yuan per pair.

The defendant thinks that

The amount of the claim is much higher than the profits it can get through export, and the infringing products are actually seized by the customs, and they have not actually exported, nor have they produced corresponding profits, so they have not caused corresponding losses to the plaintiff.

Even if the export is successful, these shoes will only be sold for more than 2 US dollars, which is equivalent to only 20 yuan, but the plaintiff claims compensation for 10 times the export price, which is not reasonable.

In response, Nike said the famous trademark was

Its losses and profits often can not be identified.

In fact, the defendant's tort may not only be once, but can be determined according to the number of Customs seized.

More importantly, the behavior of counterfeiting trademarks is subjective and malicious. The consequences of such acts involve a long time and wide spread. We must determine the amount of compensation according to the nature of the infringement, the amount involved and the reputation of the trademark.

Therefore, a pair of fake Nike trademark sports shoes, the request for compensation of 200 yuan is fully in line with the law.

How to apply the principle of statutory compensation

Chen Guangxiu, President of the intellectual property court of the Beilun court, said in an interview that in judicial practice, the trial of intellectual property cases, including trademark infringement, applies special rules both in the rules of evidence and in the determination of the amount of compensation.

But in fact, it is very difficult for many infringers to obtain benefits from infringement and the losses suffered by the trademark owners due to infringement.

Therefore, the relevant law also stipulates that the court can decide the maximum compensation of the infringer by 500 thousand yuan according to the circumstances of the infringement.

For these two different compensation principles, the plaintiff can make better choices according to the actual situation.

The four cases prosecuted by Nike company finally reached a mediation agreement under the auspices of the court. The defendant's compensation is less than the original request, but the relative amount is still relatively large.

In this regard, Chen Guangxiu made it clear that according to the relevant laws, if the court to judge these cases, the plaintiff's petition will be fully supported.

Win big profits at a small price

In recent two years, the Beilun court has handled 51 cases involving foreign intellectual property rights, all involving trademark infringement.

Besides Nike, it also includes famous trademarks such as Adidas, Bo Ma, Armani, Chanel and so on.

Analyzing the causes of disputes, except that some export enterprises lack the basic concept of intellectual property, and do not examine the legality of trademarks marked by export agents, some enterprises may not exclude the subjective malicious infringement of some enterprises.

The departments concerned admitted that the probability of trademark infringement products being seized by Customs was relatively low, so export enterprises had a game psychology. They knew that the products entrusted to export could be infringed, and they still refused to accept.

Chen Guangxiu said that this attempt to obtain illegal interests at a relatively small price is not only against the legitimate rights and interests of the famous trademarks, but also does not conform to the moral standards of the enterprises, and is not compatible with the industrial innovation policies advocated by the state, and must be dealt with according to law.