Recently, the Tianjin No. 3 Intermediate Court made a final decision on a trademark infringement lawsuit in favor of Louis Vuitton Malletier ("LV") and against Chongqing Maoluxin Import and Export Trading Co., Ltd. ("Maoluxin"), and Lutong Chen. The court found Maoluxin infringing LV's trademarks and increased the damages from RMB50,000 (USD6,800) in the lower court's decision to RMB120,000 (USD16,400).

1384552a.jpg

The court found that: first, LV has a long brand history and has strong brand influence in the fashion industry. It has been included in China's national key trademark protection list and has been the target of protection against counterfeits and trademark infringements in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and other places. The LV and Design mark ("Cited Mark") has been recognized as a well-known trademark by the courts of many provinces and cities because it has high fame in China and is widely known to the relevant public. The accused infringing mark was not only similar to the Cited Mark, but also similar to other registered trademarks owned by LV, which was enough to cause confusion and misunderstanding among the relevant public, and damage LV's trademark rights.

Second, when both Tianjin Xingang Customs and the first-instance court determined that the accused infringing products constituted trademark infringement, Maoluxin still did not provide the name, contact information and other information of the traders during the second-instance procedure, which was not only detrimental to traceability and cease of trademark infringement. Such refusal to cooperate with court orders made it more difficult for rights holders to safeguard their rights, which showed Maoluxin's obvious objective bad faith.

Third, the quantity of exported products was large and the logo used was the same or similar to the well-known Cited Mark. Maoluxin, as the exporter, should also determine whether the accused infringing products constituted infringement and whether the transaction party has the corresponding qualification, etc. However, it failed to exercise duty of care of preliminary screening of said accused infringing products. Once these large quantities of infringing products enter the relevant market, they will definitely damage the legitimate rights and interests of LV and consumers, thereby disrupting the normal order of market competition.

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.