ARTICLE
19 December 2023

The Jiangsu High Court Recognized "BURBERRY" As A Well-known Mark In A Decision Against A Squatted Mark Registered For Over 5 Years And Awarded RMB 6 Million In Damages

BE
Beijing East IP Law Firm

Contributor

Beijing East IP Ltd. was founded in 2002 by Dr. GAO Lulin and a group of experienced Chinese and international attorneys to provide top quality intellectual property services in China.Together with Beijing East IP Law Firm, a registered law firm before the Justice Department of the People’s Republic of China in 2004, we offer a complete set of intellectual property services ranging from patent and trademark prosecution, litigation to other intellectual property rights protections and enforcements.
Recently, the Jiangsu High Court concluded a trademark infringement and anti-unfair competition lawsuit between Burberry Limited ("Burberry")...
China Intellectual Property
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Recently, the Jiangsu High Court concluded a trademark infringement and anti-unfair competition lawsuit between Burberry Limited ("Burberry"), Shentu Clothing (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. ("Shentu"), Xinboli Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. ("Xinboli"). The court recognized the "BURBERRY" trademark with reg. no. G733385 and the "Burberry Equestrian Knight Design" trademark with reg. no. 781602 (together as "Cited Marks") constituted well-known marks on clothing and other goods. The defendant had infringed upon Burberry's trademark and its acts constituted unfair competition. The defendant shall compensate Burberry for economic losses of RMB 6 million (USD 836,120).

Cited Marks
1402252a.jpg 1402252b.jpg


The court found that, first, based on the sales regions and circumstances, the duration of continuous use, the publicity method, duration, extent, geographical scope, and the market reputation of the Cited Marks, it was sufficient to conclude that, before the application date of the allegedly infringing trademark "BANEBERRY" ("Disputed Mark"), Burberry's Cited Marks were widely known to the relevant public in China and were well-known marks.

Second, although the Disputed Mark and the Cited Marks were approved in the same class, for registered well-known trademarks, the scope of protection extends to marks filed on unidentical or dissimilar goods. For unregistered well-known marks, the scope of protection extends to marks filed on identical or similar goods. Article 45 of the Trademark Law stipulates that if a registered trademark violates the provisions of Article 13 of this Law, within five years from the date of registration of the trademark, the owner of the prior right or the interested party may request the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to decide to revoke the registered trademark. For registration in bad faith, the owner of a well-known trademark is not subject to the five-year time limit. In this case, based on the fact findings, Burberry's Cited Marks were not limited by the said five-year time limit.

Third, given that the Cited Marks are well-known marks registered in Class 25 for clothing and other goods, and the Disputed Mark was widely used in the signage of stores selling clothing and related goods, which constituted as bad faith copy and imitation of Burberry's well-known Cited Marks and misled the relevant public, constituted trademark infringement, and should bear civil liability to stop the infringement and compensate for losses.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More