NEW BALANCE Was Awarded 98 Million Yuan To New Bai Lun.

On the 24 day, the intermediate people's Court of Guangzhou made a first instance decision. The NewBalance company in China, the new hundred Lun Trading (China) Co., Ltd., which used the registered trademark "new hundred Lun", constituted a violation of the exclusive right of another person's trademark, and it needed to compensate the other party for 98 million yuan. It is reported that this is the highest case in the Guangzhou intermediate people's court.

Trademark infringement

Because of the existence of malicious "reverse confusion", it violated the "Guangdong shoe company boss Zhou". New balance "Trademark rights", the famous sports brand "NEW BALANCE" seller - New brun Trading (China) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the new Bai Lun company) was sentenced to compensate Zhou Moulun 98 million yuan. Yesterday, the reporter learned from the Guangzhou intermediate people's court that the court sentenced the case on Friday, which is also the highest case in Guangzhou intermediate people's court. It is reported that the case is still in the appeals period, and whether "NEW BALANCE" appeals is unclear.

"NEW BALANCE"

The "NEW BALANCE" brand was founded in 1906 in the United States, and is a world-famous jogging shoe. In December 2006, the new company was established in Shanghai, mainly responsible for selling "NEW BALANCE" in China. Gym shoes Series products. In the process, the company chose to use the Chinese name of "new hundred Lun" for publicity and marketing, and use the "new New Balance" logo in its promotional products.

"Bai Lun" and "new hundred Lun"

Zhou Moulun, who is doing business in Guangzhou, is the exclusive right holder of the registered trademarks of "Bai Lun" and "new hundred Lun". He also has his own business, producing men's shoes products marked by "balun" and "new balun", and has sales counters in large shopping malls. The registered trademark of "Bai Lun" was approved to be registered in twenty-fifth categories of "clothing, shoes, hats, socks" and so on in August 21, 1996. The trademark was approved to be spanferred to Zhou Moulun in 2004 4. The registered trademark of "new hundred Lun" is approved for use in the twenty-fifth category "shoes" and "boots". Zhou Moulun was allowed to register the trademark in January 2008.

NB is accused of infringement.

The amount exceeds 1 billion.

Zhou Moulun claimed that the defendant, new Bai Lun company, used the "new hundred Lun" as a trademark mark, and used the "new New Balance" to identify the products in the shop. In the shop's small ticket issued by the shop, "thank you for buying the new product", which led to a large number of consumers and operators mistakenly believe that the "new hundred Lun" trademark is the Chinese trademark of the defendant's new product, and even customers often ask whether the product is "NEW BALANCE". Zhou Moulun believes that the behavior of new Bai Lun company separates the specific relationship between the plaintiff as a trademark owner and the registered trademark of "new hundred Lun", which inhibits the plaintiff's establishment and expansion of the space of "Bai Lun" and "Xin Bai Lun", and constitutes trademark infringement.

According to Zhou Moulun statistics, from July 2011 to the time of prosecution, the total amount of new products sold by the company was over 1 billion yuan, making huge profits. He asked the defendant to immediately stop infringement and eliminate the impact and claim about 98000000 yuan.

Knowing that unjust persisting is the court's malicious use.

New Bai Lun company argues that the foregoing way of using it is to use its enterprise name "new hundred Lun" and to use the Chinese name of "new hundred Lun" as the "NEW BALANCE" commodity, which is used in good faith. Its use of "new hundred Lun" sells goods much earlier than the time when the plaintiff uses the "new brun" trademark to sell the goods, and its use does not cause any confusion to consumers or the relevant public, and does not constitute infringement.

The court found that the trademark "Bai Lun" was registered as early as 1996, and it can be easily found through open channels. Moreover, in December 2007, the new affiliated company (new balance company) asked the Trademark Office to reject Zhou Lun's application for the registration of "new hundred Lun" trademark, but it was not adopted. This shows that the new Bai Lun company is aware of the registration of trademarks of "Bai Lun" and "new hundred Lun", but it still chooses to use the "new hundred Lun" to identify and publicize its products. After Zhou Moulun obtained the "new hundred Lun" trademark registration, the defendant continued to use the "new blun" logo extensively in sales and publicity. Therefore, the court held that the defendant's use of the word "new hundred Lun" could not be used in good faith. The defendant, new hundred Lun company, did not use the full name of its business name when marking and promoting its products, while the behavior of highlighting the use of "new hundred Lun" was contrary to integrity, and its assertion that "new hundred Lun" enjoyed prior rights could not be established.

The defendant also advocated that "new hundred Lun" is the spanlation of its product name "NEW BALANCE". However, the court held that the Chinese spanlation of "NEW BALANCE" was "new balance", and the defendant's new company called "New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc." as the "new balance movement shoes company", also known as the "New Babylon" before its product. Therefore, the defendant's new "hundred Lun" is the product of its "NEW BALANCE" spanlation.

Statement to eliminate the impact of compensation Zhou Moulun nearly billion yuan

The court held that the defendant's use of the "new hundred Lun" logo was mainly used to sell products in physical stores and flagship stores and to publicize products in official websites and video advertisements.

The court held that the defendant's sports shoes products were similar to the plaintiff's "shoes" goods approved by the registered trademark of "Bai Lun" and "new blun", and the defendant used the "new blun" to be similar to the plaintiff's "Bai Lun" registered trademark and similar to the plaintiff's "new hundred Lun" registered trademark. The defendant passed a series of promotional activities to make the "new hundred Lun" have a strong significance. The plaintiff has confirmed that the links and information provided by Baidu and Taobao search on the "Bai Lun" and "new blun" basically point to the defendant's products. It can be seen that the defendant used the "new hundred Lun" for its products, which easily led the relevant public to mistake the products of "Bai Lun" and "new Bai Lun" as the products of the defendant's new brun company. The confusion of this type will make the "brun" and "new Brun" registered trademarks lose their basic recognition function. The plaintiff's use of "brun" and "new brun" registered trademarks to seek market reputation and the space and value of shaping the brand image are also suppressed. Therefore, the defendant's use of "new hundred Lun" acts should constitute the plaintiff's "Bai Lun" and "new hundred brun". Trademark infringement 。

From the financial evidence of the defendant, the defendant made a profit of about 190 million yuan during the infringement period.

The court decided that the new company would stop infringement and publish a statement on the front page of its official website and shop to eliminate the impact and compensate Zhou Moulun for 98 million yuan.

"Reverse confusion"

Prevent the jungle

Xu Xuan, a professor at the school of intellectual property at Jinan University law school, believes that the confusion of the case is contrary to the confusion of the traditional trademark law, which is a reverse confusion. Reverse confusion generally occurs when plaintiff's registered trademark is lower than the defendant's trademark popularity. Under such circumstances, consumers are unlikely to believe that the goods or services provided by the trademark user are from the registered trademark owner. Instead, they may mistakenly believe that the goods or services provided by the registered trademark owner come from the reverse confusion of the trademark user. If the trademark law does not stop the reverse confusion, the well-known enterprises will have no scruples when using the registered trademarks of others, resulting in the unfair competition result of the jungle.

This reverse confusion will significantly weaken the plaintiff's intention to build a business reputation and exploit the market by using the trademark involved, resulting in the distortion or concealed of the plaintiff's trademark recognition. The defendant's new hundred company has hundreds of stores in the country. Its operation will slowly nibble on the plaintiff's registered trademark. The relevant consumers may think that the plaintiff is infringing the defendant's trademark right, thereby causing substantial damage to the registered trademark.

The significance of this case is to remind trademark holders of well-known brands of domestic enterprises to prevent foreign enterprises from entering the Chinese market, and to make use of all kinds of confusion on trademarks to steal the goodwill value of famous brands of domestic enterprises and steal the brand value of domestic enterprises.