Nike wins compensation for trademark infringement case

Post time:08-24 2007 Source:NTD Patent & Trademark Agency Ltd. Author:
font-size: +-
563
On August 20, the Shanghai 2nd Intermediate People's Court made the first instance judgment on two trademark infringement cases between American Nike, Inc. and three Chinese companies, including Jinjiang Longzhibu Shoes Co. Ltd., Jinjiang Kangwei Shoes Co. Ltd. and Shanghai Auchan Hypermarket Co. Ltd. The court ruled that the three defendants should stop the infringement and publish statement on related media. Auchan was ordered to compensate 160,000 RMB yuan to the plaintiff, and the other two to compensate 100,000 RMB yuan and 90,000 RMB yuan respectively.

In May 1993, Nike, Inc. registered the figurative mark of Michael Jordan in China. In January 2007, Nike, Inc. bought four pairs of sports shoes in three stores of Shanghai Auchan Hypermarket.

On February 2, 2007, Nike sent a lawyer's letter to Auchan Hypermarket and informed the Hypermarket of the infringing goods sold in its three stores. Nike requested the Hypermarket to stop selling and to seal up the infringing goods, and to provide related documents about the infringing goods before February 15. However, at the end of February, the infringing goods manufactured by Longzhibu Shoes were still sold in two stores of Auchan Hypermarket.

In May 2007, Nike instituted proceedings before the Shanghai 2nd Intermediate People's Court, requesting the three defendants to stop the infringement and compensate 500,000 RMB yuan.

Comparing Nike's registered figurative mark with the figures on the shoes manufactured by the two shoes companies, the court established that the figures used by the two defendants were nearly identical to Nike's registered figurative mark. According to the court, Auchan Hypermarket also committed trademark infringement by selling the infringing goods without any authorization from the rightholder. Taking the circumstances of the defendants' infringing acts into consideration, the court made the above judgment on the two cases.

Comment

Consultation