Cases of IPR Infringement

Apple pays 60 million USD to Chinese Proview

The US tech. giant Apple has agreed to pay 60 million US dollars to settle its trademark dispute with the Chinese company Proview Technology, registered in Shenzhen. The Higher People’s Court of Guangdong Province announced the verdict on Monday.

Apple’s settlement offer was made to gain back full possession of iPad’s trademark, made effective last Monday. The dispute dated back to 2009 when Proview Shenzhen claimed it held the rights to use the trademark IPad name in China's mainland, even though Apple bought the rights from Proview Taipei in 2009.

Proview Shenzhen claimed the deal with Proview Taipai had no legal effect with Proview branch, which spawned the filing of various lawsuits across the country. Earlier this year, a courts in Shanghai and Hong Kong both favored Apple in the case. But the verdict given by the court in Guangdong marked the final settlement of the case. (Xinhuanet, 2012-07-03)

Rehau polymers prevails in a trademark dispute

The Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court recently entered the final decision for a trademark dispute raised by Rehau China, ordering the defendant Shanghai Ruihao Pipeline Co., Ltd. to indemnify 380,000 yuan in damages.  Rehau China ended this four-year legal battle on a triumphant note.

Established in August 2002, Rehau China is a leading system and service provider for polymer-based solutions and its main products cover polyethylene floor heating pipes. The company made itself known as REHAU, Rehau floor heating systems and German Rehau floor heating systems. Founded in March 2007, Shanghai Ruihao is a local company with its business covering pipelines, pipe fittings, electric wires, water cycle equipments, hardware appliances etc.

In 2008, Rehau discovered that Shanghai Ruihao spread a great deal of advertisements on their website, which highlighted RUIHAO (same pronunciation as the Rehau in Chinese) and the figures similar to their registered trademarks. On July 29 the same year, Shanghai Administration for Industry and Commerce Jiading Office seized a batch of plastic pipeline and cardboard for packaging printed with trademark of RUIHAO. At the end of 2008, the Jiading Office imposed a fine of 20,000 yuan on Shanghai Ruihao on the ground of false advertising and ordered an injunction-like measure.

Rehau Company then brought the case to the Shanghai Minhang District People’s Court and sought injunction.   
The court entered into the first-instance judgment on this trademark dispute, ordering the defendant to cease infringement and indemnify 380,000 yuan in damages.

Disgruntled Shanghai Ruihao then appealed to the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court.

The court held that the case is a trademark usage dispute. Despite Shanghai Ruihao registered the RUIHAO and its figure on Class 11 commodities, but not in the class concerning floor heating pipeline which Rehau has registered its trademark in.  As a result their claim that they haven’t used the disputed trademark on the floor heating pipeline was rejected by the court. During the trial, the court held that the trademark of RUIHAO and its figures in orders could lead confusion and misunderstanding among the public and the defendant highlighted the word “瑞好” in their advertisements. Based on the affirmation above, the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court affirm the original judgment. (China Intellectual Property News, 2012-06-06)

Louis Vuitton Case represented by Unitalen is Enlisted in the Ten Civil IP Cases of Year 2011 by Guangzhou Court

On 15 April, 2012, the trademark infringement and unfair competition case that Louis Vuitton Malletier (Louis Vuitton for short hereinafter) vs, Li Zhongkui and Guangzhou Xuze Leather Products Co., Ltd (Unitalen as the attorney of Louis Vuitton)was selected as one of the Ten IP Civil Cases of Year 2011 by Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court. 
The Fake Can’t trump the Real — the copycatting LV (Louis Vuireal) was ordered to pay damages of 2 million yuan The plaintiff Louis Vuitton Malletier sued the defendants Li XX and Guangzhou XX Leather Leather Products Co., Ltd for trademark infringement and unfair competition. The two defendants are accused of using “  ” (while the real trademark registered was  ) for many times on their various leather products and commercial pamphlets for promotion, and they announced that the production of their leather products was under the authorization of “French Louis Vuireal International Group Co., Ltd” (which was actually registered in Hong Kong). 

The Court found the two defendants committing trademark infringement and unfair competition, and held that the defendants shall pay damages to the plaintiff in the amount of 2 million yuan for economic loss. This is also the intellectual property infringement case with the highest damages amount adjudicated by the Court of the city. (China Daily, 2012-05-15)

Seagull Watch won the trademark fight against Omega 

The intellectual property board of the organizing committee of the World Watch and Jewelry Show in Basel, Switzerland, ruled over the complaint filed by Swiss watchmaker Omega against Tianjin Seagull Watch Group over trademark infringement on March 10, finding Seagull constituted no infringement over the registered trademark of Omega.

On the Show, Seagull displayed a co-axial women watch featuring indigenous intellectual property and minimum diameter, which caused concern of insiders.

On the afternoon of March 9, Omega filed a complaint to the IP board of the Show, claiming that Seagull used the word "CO-AXIAL" in its promotional materials and allegedly infringed the trademark of Omega. When lawyers of the IP board and heads of Omega came to the stand of Seagull at the end of the show that day, lawyers of Seagull handed over Seagull’ s signboard after communication with the IP board and got related evidences and materials ready for proceeding.

Omega claimed it registered two trademarks, "ΩOMEGA CO-AXIAL" and "CO-AXIAL 3", and Seagull infringed its trademark by using the word "CO-AXIAL".
.
By citing the English translation of "同轴的" from the encyclopedia and English-Chinese Dictionary as co-axial, Seagull defended that co-axial was used as an adjective to describe the watch, rather than a trademark.

On the morning of March 10, the IP board announced its decision, ruling the signboard used by Seagull didn't infringe the trademark of Omega.

As another case of victory in rights-safeguarding, it proves Seagull is stepping to "Invented in China" from "Made in China".

In the World Watch and Jewelry Show of 2011, Seagull won a lawsuit where it was accused of infringement by producing an ornament of gyroscope flywheel stainless steel cuff button, which was the first victory for Chinese enterprises to safeguard their rights in the Word Watch and Jewelry Show.

The eight-day World Watch and Jewelry Show in Basel opened on March 8. As the biggest watch show in the world, it welcomed 1,815 watchmakers and jewelry producers from 41 countries and regions, one-sixth of which were Swiss enterprises. (IPR in China 2012-03-15)

BMW fined for advertising with Long March rocket

BMW (China) Automotive Trading Co Ltd was recently fined 90,000 yuan ($14,288) by the Fengtai district court for unauthorized use of the Long March CZ-2F rocket image in its advertising campaign. 

The court ruled that the ad could mislead consumers to believe the company has a relationship with the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology, the trademark owner of the Long March rocket series, which it said constitutes unfair competition. (BEIJING TIMES 2012-03-07)

Michael Jordan sues Chinese company for improper use of his name

Former NBA basketball legend Michael Jordan has filed a suit against a Chinese sportswear and shoe manufacturer for "unauthorized use" of his name and identity, his attorney said on Thursday.

Jordan, who led the Chicago Bulls to six NBA titles during the 1990s, has been known in China by the name "Qiaodan" - the Chinese translation of Jordan - since he was first seen on Chinese television program playing for the U.S. basketball team in the 1984 Olympics.

The Chinese company, Qiaodan Sports Company Limited, has registered in 2000 and used the name "Qiaodan".

Jordan and his attorneys in Jun He Law Offices believed that the company "build a business" of Jordan's Chinese name without permission, and it also used the number 23 (the jersey Jordan wore during his NBA career) and "even attempt" to use the names of Jordan's children.

"Inspired by Yao Ming's case here in China, we had filed suit in a Chinese court on February 21 against Qiaodan Sports Company Limited," said Christine Kang, a partner of Jun He Law Offices.

China's popular basketball player Yao Ming has won his suit against a sportswear company in central China for using his name and signature without permission last year.

"Any monetary awards I might receive will be invested in growing the sport of basketball in China," said Jordan in a statement. "I am taking this action to preserve ownership of my name and my brand."

According to Jordan's official website, Qiaodan Sport's misuse of Michael Jordan's name and identity "has misled and continues to mislead consumers" in China.

Qiaodan Sports has filed for over 100 similar trademarks including trademarks containing the number 23. In the meanwhile, the company has filed applications for trademarks consisting of Jordan's sons' names, Jeffrey and Marcus, in Chinese characters and the associated pinyin Romanization.

"Qiaodan Sports has knowingly profited from this infringement of Michael Jordan's naming rights," claimed the website. "Its aggressive marketing tactics have misled the Chinese consumers."

Though Jordan claimed the complaint was "not about money", his attorney admitted that Jordan also asked for compensation for moral damage in the case.

"It is the first time for Mr. Jordan to conduct a transnational litigation and will focus on the right of his name, but we also reserve the right to fight for more," said Kang. (Xinhuanet, 2012-02-23)