Recently, Zhejiang Modern New Energy Co., Ltd.（hereinafter as “New Energy”） brought Zhejiang Cixibaili Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.（hereinafter as “Cixibaili”） and Beijing Jingdong 360 Degree Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd.（hereinafter as “Jingdong”） and Zhejiang Hangzhou Jingdong Huijing Trade Co., Ltd. （hereinafter as “Huijing”）to the court, considering the mark “韩国现代（HYUNDAI）” had been illegally used and the right of trademark “現代” had been infringed.
Hangzhou Railway Transport Court made the judgment in the first stance that Cixibaili, Jingdong and Huijing did not infringe the right of trademark “現代” shared by New Energy, and rejected all requested from New Energy.
New Energy owned No.828600, No.4764181, No.7392264 and No.12724977 registered trademarks “現代”（hereinafter as involved trademarks） certified on the products of drinking fountain. Cixibaili was commissioned to produce “HYUNDAI” drinking fountains and also permitted to mark “HYUNDAI” on the drinking fountains, and responsible for commercial promotion and after-sale service of the brand since 2010. In September 2016, New Energy found that Cixibaili was producing and selling products with the mark on the same kind of drinking fountain “HYUNDAI现代” and”现代饮水机” changed into “韩国现代”。 Meanwhile, the shops of Jingdong and Huijing on Jingdong Online Shopping Mall marked with ”韩国现代（HYUNDAI）” on the drinking fountains.
Therefore, New Energy thought that Cixibaili, Jingdong and Huijing had infringed the right of trademark, and brought all three to Hangzhou Railway Transport Court, and requested to stop the infringement and compensate 800,000 yuan for money losses and expenses for preventing the infringement.
Jingdong and Huijing argued that, the involved trademarks were different from the marks which were charged of infringing, and the consumers were not confused by the two. Cixibaili alleged that it was commissioned to use the trademark “HYUNDAI” and it was also legal to use the corporate name of Korea Hyundai Comprehensive Business KK.
The court held that New Energy did not submit the proof that the involved trademarks enjoyed high popularity, while the proof from Cixibaili could show the fame and reputation of “韩国现代” and “HYUNDAI” in China. Meanwhile, the evidences also showed that it was reasonable to use “HYUNDAI” and “现代”， the only Chinese translation corresponding to “HYUNDAI”。 Further, the defendants did not cling to the involved trademarks intentionally. Besides, even the drinking fountains with trademark “现代” had been on sale continuously, the consumers could differentiate the products easily from the stable marketing layout formed for a long period, because of the different market positioning between New Energy and Cixibaili.
In summary, the court held that marks which were charged of infringing used by defendants would not cause the confusions among consumers, therefore refused all requests from New Energy in the first stance.（by Wang Guohao）
（Editor Jiang Shuo）
（All contents of this newspaper may not be reproduced or used without express permission）