亚洲中文字幕日产无码2020,国产精品186在线观看在线播放,久久婷婷五月综合色99啪ak,国产精品麻豆aⅴ人妻

Unitalen Representing "DR. MARTENS" First Won Judicial Determination of a Famous Trademark, and "馬丁靴(Martin Boots)" Determined Not to Be a Common Name for Footwear and Boots Goods

August 28, 2024

Case Brief

The plaintiff, Airwair International Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Airwair" or "the plaintiff"), as the exclusive global authorized licensee of the "Dr. Martens" series of trademarks, including the No. 584207 international registered trademark, is responsible for the design, production, promotion, and sale of the series of products of the brand "Dr. Martens" in China. Since the 1960s, "Dr. Martens" footwear and boots products have been sold in more than 80 countries and regions worldwide, one of the most recognizable footwear trademark brands in the world. Since 2003, "DR. MARTENS" and its products have been advertised and reported by the Chinese newspapers and media. In 2007, the brand "Dr. Martens" entered the Chinese market, with its sales areas covering all over the country. The brand has enjoyed high popularity in China.

The defendant, Hu, the legal representative of a clothing company in Shantou, filed an application in July 2011 and obtained the approval in June 2012 for registration of the No. 9780715 "Dr. mannar" trademark for use on the same goods "clothing; footwear" as the authorized trademark. The defendant, the clothing company in Shantou, sold footwear and boots products on Tmall, Taobao, 1688 and other e-commerce platforms, and used the infringing marks such as "馬丁(Martin)", "馬丁靴(Martin Boots)", "馬丁鞋(Martin Shoes)", "MARTIN", and "Dr. Mannar" on the homepages of the stores, the linked webpages of the goods, the packaging of the shoe boxes, the wrapping paper and other places. Airwair filed a lawsuit with the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court on the grounds that the aforementioned acts of the defendant constituted trademark infringement.

Determination of the Court

Upon trial, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court held that the plaintiff, by virtue of the authorization, is entitled to conduct sales and promotion concerning the No. G584207 trademark "DR. MARTENS" (hereinafter referred to as "the authorized trademark") in China and to file a civil lawsuit on the basis of the license. The authorized trademark has enjoyed a high reputation in China after a long period of advertisement, use and promotion, and has already become a famous trademark in the goods of "footwear, boots and clothing" on which it is approved for registration. Further, the sued infringing goods also pertain to footwear and boots goods, and because the defendant Hu has registered the No. 9780715 trademark for "Dr. Mannar", it is necessary to obtain the determination of the famous trademark in this case. The sued "Dr. mannar" "Dr. Mannar馬丁靴(Martin Boots)", "", "" and other marks are similar to the plaintiff's authorized trademarks "Dr. Martens", "馬丁(Martin) Dr. MARTENS", "", etc., in terms of the letter composition, pronunciation, and Chinese and English meanings. The clothing company in Shantou used the sued marks on footwear and boots goods and sold them on various online shopping platforms. Such act would easily make the relevant public believe that the goods have the same source or there is a close connection between their sources, and thus may easily confuse the public with source of the goods. In addition, there was no evidence in the case that the term "馬丁靴(Martin Boots)" is a legal or conventionally used common name. On the contrary, various advertisements and reports concerning the authorized trademark can all reflect that the term "馬丁靴(Martin Boots)" corresponds to or is directed to the authorized trademark, which has formed a certain correspondence with the authorized trademark. Therefore, the sued acts constitute an infringement of the authorized trademark.

In the end, the court ruled that the clothing company in Shantou and Hu should cease the infringement immediately and eliminate the influence and that punitive damages should be applied to fully support the litigation request for compensation of 3 million yuan by Airwair. This case is now in its second trial.

Typical Significance

This case is a typical case for a famous trademark to combat malicious registration and infringing acts, which helps deter the malicious infringing acts of "free-riding" in the market.

 

Keywords

主站蜘蛛池模板: 国产成人无码a区精油按摩| 无码av无码一区二区| 精品国产制服丝袜高跟| 天天做天天摸天天爽天天爱| 久久青草成人综合网站| 日韩精品无码综合福利网| 亚洲国产av无码精品| 国产一区二区四区在线观看| 亚洲午夜av久久久精品影院| 日本一区二区三区免费播放| 九九影院理论片私人影院| 色婷婷日日躁夜夜躁| 国产高潮视频在线观看| 日本三级片网站| 99久久国产精品免费高潮| 亚洲国产精品成人精品无码区 | 国产亚洲综合视频在线| 日本免费一区二区三区四区五六区| √天堂8资源中文在线| 四虎永久在线精品免费一区二区| 国产人妻人伦精品欧美| 2021最新在线精品国自产拍视频| 中文天堂在线最新版在线www| 国内精品久久久久久中文字幕| 国产无码AV| 婷婷成人丁香五月综合激情| 丰满少妇人妻无码专区| 日韩人妻ol丝袜av一二区| 久久久久人妻啪啪一区二区| 18?????网站| 亚洲伦无码中文字幕另类| 亚洲图片小说激情综合| 妺妺窝人体色www在线| 色丁狠狠桃花久久综合网 | 国产碰在79香蕉人人澡人人看喊| 久久久g0g0午夜无码精品 | 国产精品视频超级碰| 亚洲欧洲∨国产一区二区三区| 色综合久久88色综合天天| 日本高清在线一区至六区不卡视频 | 国产精品久久精品三级|