Uniqlo was sued for trademark infringement, the court's second instance "corrected its name"


At present, how to guide trademark owners to protect their rights in good faith has become a focal issue in civil litigation. A few days ago, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court sued Guangzhou Compass Exhibition Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Compass Company) and Guangzhou Zhongwei Enterprise Management Consulting Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhongwei Company) against the distributors of the well-known clothing brand Uniqlo in China. China) Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Fast Retailing Company), Fast Retailing (China) Trading Co., Ltd. Guangzhou Baixin Plaza Store (hereinafter referred to as Fast Retailing Company Baixin Plaza Store) made a second-instance judgment and the order was upheld According to the judgment of first instance, Fast Retailing Company and Fast Retailing Company Baixin Plaza Store did not infringe the exclusive right of the registered trademark involved.


In the previous first instance, Compass Company and Zhongwei Company sued Fast Retailing Company and Fast Retailing Company Baixin Plaza Store for products with a certain logo (hereinafter referred to as the accused logo) for infringing on a trademark that they legally owned (Hereinafter referred to as the trademark in dispute), the court of first instance found that Fast Retailing and Fast Retailing Baixin Plaza did not constitute infringement.


Disputes caused by clothing identification

It is understood that the Compass Company was established in July 2004, and its business scope includes exhibition event planning and exhibition equipment rental. Zhongwei Company was established in April 2005, mainly engaged in corporate management consulting, corporate image design, trademark agency, etc. On March 14, 2012, Compass Company and Zhongwei Company jointly applied to the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce for the registration of the disputed trademark No. 10619071, which was subsequently approved for use on 25 types of shoes, hats and other products.


Fast Retailing was established in December 2006, and its shareholder is Fast Retailing Japan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Fast Retailing Japan). Japan Fast Retailing obtained the exclusive right to use the No. 791494 "UNIQLO" registered trademark in 1995, and obtained the exclusive right to use the No. 3012401 "UNIQLO" and other registered trademarks in 2003. Authorized by Japan's Fast Retailing, Fast Retailing Corporation used "UNIQLO", "Uniqlo" and the accused logo in many places in the promotion of related products during its business process.


Compass and Zhongwei believe that the accused logos of Fast Retailing and Fast Retailing Baixin Plaza are compared with the disputed trademarks based on the general attention standards of the relevant public. There is no obvious difference between the two and they are easily related. The public has misunderstood the source of the goods, and the two constitute the same. In addition, the accused logo was used on clothing and other related products, which was the same as the goods approved for the disputed trademark, and was suspected of constituting trademark infringement.


Accordingly, Compass Company and Zhongwei Company sued Fast Retailing Company and Fast Retailing Company Baixin Plaza Store to the People’s Court of Baiyun District, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province (hereinafter referred to as Baiyun District Court). After the trial, the Baiyun District Court made a first-instance judgment and determined that the accused logo did not constitute an infringement of the exclusive right to use the trademark in dispute. Compass Company and Zhongwei Company refused to accept the judgment of the first instance and appealed to the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court.


No infringement in the second-instance judgment

The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court held that the focus of the dispute in the case was whether the accused logo constituted an infringement of the trademark in question, and made the following determinations: First, the accused logo and the trademark in dispute were neither the same nor similar. Starting from the general attention of the relevant public, the accused logo is composed of two parts, the right part is composed of three English words "ULTRA, LIGHT, and DOWN" arranged vertically. The three English words have clear pronunciation and meanings. There are certain differences between the accused logo and the disputed trademark in sound, form, and meaning; secondly, from the actual use of the registered trademark of the right holder, Compass and Zhongwei Company filed a lawsuit and approved the registration of the disputed trademark in this case. In less than one year, no evidence related to the reputation of the disputed trademark was submitted. While Fast Retailing Company and Fast Retailing Company Baixin Plaza store use the accused logo on similar products, they also use the "UNIQLO" series of trademarks that have long been approved for registration. The "UNIQLO" series of trademarks have been recognized by the market after long-term operation and use, and have high market popularity and distinctiveness. Fast Retailing Company and Fast Retailing Company Baixin Plaza Store combined the left part of the accused logo with the "UNIQLO" series trademarks on the products. Through long-term use, the accused logo has gained strong distinctiveness and market reputation. It will not cause confusion in the market, and subjectively, it is difficult to determine that it has an improper intent to "free ride" the disputed trademark. Furthermore, combined with the use of the accused logo and the well-known "UNIQLO" trademark, consumers can already identify the origin of the goods, and the relevant public will not confuse or misidentify the origin when purchasing goods. Or deceptively misleading, etc.


Accordingly, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court determined that the grounds for appeal of Compass Company and Zhongwei Company were not established, and Fast Retailing Company and Fast Retailing Company Baixin Plaza Store did not constitute infringement. (Our reporter Jiang Xu, correspondent Xiao Shengcheng).

Information source: Intellectual Property News.