<strike id="a3kkp"><i id="a3kkp"></i></strike>

  1. <tbody id="a3kkp"><track id="a3kkp"><option id="a3kkp"></option></track></tbody>
    Hello, Welcome To Zhuoyue International Business Law Consulting Co.,Ltd. EN | CN

    UNIQLO trademark infringement court was indicted second instance as its "real name"

    Release Time:2018-03-01

    At present, how to guide trademark rights holders' rights and interests as the focus of civil litigation. Recently, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court sued the dealers in China of the well-known clothing brand UNIQLO for the sales promotion of Guangzhou's Compass Conference & Exhibition Services Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Compass) and Guangzhou Zhongwei Enterprise Management Consulting Services Co., Ltd. (Zhongwei) China) Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Fast Retailing Corporation), Fast Retailing (China) Trading Co., Ltd. Guangzhou Baixin Square store (hereinafter referred to as Fast Retailing Corporation Baixin Square store) infringement of trademark disputes The first instance verdict, fast marketing company and fast marketing company hundred letter plaza shop did not infringe the exclusive rights of registered trademark.

    Earlier in the first instance, Compass Company and Zhongwei Company had sued Xunwei Xunyi Co., Ltd. and Fast Retailing Co., Ltd. for producing and selling the goods with the logo (hereinafter referred to as the called logo) infringing upon their lawful ownership of a trademark (Hereinafter referred to as the trademark dispute), the court of first instance judged that the fast-moving company and the fast-moving company Baixin Plaza did not infringe upon the trial.

    Apparel logo trigger dispute

    It is understood that compass company was established in July 2004, the scope of business including exhibition planning, exhibition leasing. The only company was established in April 2005, mainly engaged in business management consulting, corporate image design, trademark agents. On March 14, 2012, Compass Company and Zhongwei Company jointly applied for the registration of the trademark No. 10619071 to the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce and was subsequently approved for use on 25 types of shoes, caps and other products.

    Founded in December 2006 Xun-marketing company, its shareholders for Japan Co., Ltd. Fast Marketing (hereinafter referred to as Japan's rapid marketing). Japan Fast Retailing in 1995 to obtain No. 791494 "UNIQLO" registered trademark of exclusive rights, and in 2003 No. 3012401 "UNIQLO" and other registered trademark rights. Fast marketing by the Japanese fast-track company in the business process, in the promotion of related products, multiple use of the "UNIQLO" "UNIQLO" and the indications were indicted.

    Compass Company and the only company that the general public attention to the standard, the fast-track company, fast-track company Baixin Plaza, the accused logo and the challenge of trademark comparison, there is no significant difference between the two, easy to make the relevant The public mistaken for the source of the goods, both constitute the same. In addition, the indications were used in clothing and other related products, and the use of countervailing trademark approved the same goods, suspected of constituting trademark infringement.

    Accordingly, Compass Company and Zhongwei Company sued Xunxiao Company and Xinyi Baixin Plaza Store to People's Court of Baiyun District, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province (hereinafter referred to as Baiyun District Court). After hearing the court, Baiyun District Court of First Instance rendered a verdict of the first instance and found that the indicted logo did not constitute a violation of the exclusive right to contest the trademark. Compass Company and Zhongwei Company refused to accept the judgment of the first instance and appealed to the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court.

    The second instance verdict did not infringe

    After hearing the case, Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court held that the litigation focus of the case was whether the accused logo constituted a violation of the trademark rights for the dispute and made the following findings: First of all, the indicted trademark and the trademark for the dispute are neither identical nor similar. Starting from the general public's attention, the indications are composed of two parts, the right half consists of vertical arrangement of three English words "ULTRA, LIGHT, DOWN", three English words have clear pronunciation and meaning, Second, from the actual usage of the registered trademark of the obligee, the Compass Company and Zhong Wei Co., Ltd. were both registered at the time of suing for the case against the trademark dispute In less than one year, no evidences related to the popularity of the trademark dispute have been submitted. The fast-forwarding companies, fast-marketing company hundred letter Plaza store accused logo on the use of similar products, but also has used the registration has long been registered "UNIQLO" series of trademarks. "UNIQLO" series of trademarks after long-term operation has been recognized by the market, with high market visibility and significance. Fast marketing company, fast marketing company 100 letter Plaza store will be indicted the left part of the logo and the "UNIQLO" series of trademarks in combination with the use of goods, made long-term use of the indications obtained by the appeal of a strong salience and market reputation, Will not lead to confusion in the market, and will be subjectively found to be unfair intentions of clinging to the trademark dispute for "free riding". Furthermore, combining the indications of indications with the well-known "UNIQLO" trademark, consumers are enough to identify the source of the products, and the relevant public will not be confused about the source when they buy the products. Or deceptive misleading.

    Accordingly, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court found that the reasons for the appeal of Compass Company and Zhongwei Company did not hold. The fast-selling company and fast-selling company Baixin Plaza did not infringe.