国精一二二产品无人区免费应用,精品夜夜爽欧美毛片视频,99久久久无码国产精品免费,精人妻无码一区二区三区

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: 国产亚洲视频在线播放香蕉| 亚洲欧美日韩愉拍自拍美利坚 | 久久精品无码一区二区www| 欧美精品久久久久久| 亚洲AV无码乱码精品| 84pao国产成视频永久免费| 久久丫精品国产| 99久久精品无码一区二区三区| 久久久亚洲精品成人| 亚洲成在人线视av| 国产成人愉拍精品| 国精品无码一区二区三区在线蜜臀| 久久久噜噜噜久噜久久| 国产午夜福利在线机视频| 男女裸交无遮挡啪啪激情试看| 成人国内精品久久久久影院| 精品国产人成亚洲区| 免费无码专区在线视频| 国产伦子沙发午休系列资源曝光| 不卡无码人妻一区三区音频| 99久热在线精品视频观看| 日日摸夜夜添狠狠添欧美| 亚洲男人第一av网站| 国产蜜芽尤物在线一区| av无码av不卡一区二区| 亚洲日韩在线a视频在线观看| 亚洲欧美综合一区二区三区| 亚洲最新无码中文字幕久久| 久久综合九色综合97伊人| 果冻传媒av精品一区| 国产av国片精品jk制服丝袜| 国产亚洲精品精品国产亚洲综合| 玖玖玖香蕉精品视频在线观看| 亚洲粉嫩高潮的18p| 日本又黄又爽gif动态图| 亚洲国产亚综合在线区| a在线观看免费网站大全| 国产亚洲精品一区在线播放| 日韩色欲人妻无码精品av| 少妇人妻偷人精品视频| 国产精品久久久久久久久鸭无码|