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: 久久亚洲精品无码观看网站| 午夜福利影院私人爽爽| 国内精品伊人久久久久av影院| 乱人伦xxxx国语对白| 伊人色综合九久久天天蜜桃| 国产精品网红尤物福利在线观看| 亚洲妇女无套内射精| 人妻系列无码专区无码专区| 无码日韩av一区二区三区| 国产精品视频一区二区亚瑟| 亚洲精品有码在线观看 | 少妇放荡的呻吟干柴烈火免费视频| 亚洲色一区二区三区四区 | av片在线观看免费| 国产成人a∨激情视频厨房| 久久免费的精品国产v∧| 亚洲性色av私人影院无码| yy111111少妇无码理论片| 亚洲日韩av无码一区二区三区人| 妺妺窝人体色www在线小说| 久久www免费人成—看片| 99国产精品无码专区| 美女被?到高潮喷出白浆漫画入口| 日本边添边摸边做边爱喷水| 午夜羞羞影院男女爽爽爽| 国产精品久久久久久久福利| 波多野结衣一区二区三区av高清| 久久99热这里只有精品66| 国产成人av无码片在线观看| 东北老头嫖妓猛对白精彩| 激情综合五月丁香亚洲| 国产农村妇女精品一二区| 97久久超碰国产精品最新| 亚洲欧美日韩自偷自拍| 亚洲gv猛男gv无码男同| 欧美粗大| 久久久天堂国产精品女人| 人妻加勒比系列无码专区| 亚洲精品卡2卡3卡4卡5卡区| 免费人成在线观看| 国产草莓视频无码a在线观看|