Court Denies Chanel's TM Infringement Claim, Sides with Local Jeweler

发布时间: 2019/5/8 10:29:00

  Chanel brought a trademark infringement case to People's Court of Haizhu District, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, alleging products sold by a jewelry store operated by an individual surnamed Ye has infringed its exclusive right of No.G1189929 double C figure trademark. The court later made its first-instance decision, determining infringement by the store, and ordered Ye to indemnify 60,000 yuan in damages. The disgruntled Ye then brought the case to Guangzhou IP Court, which would side with Ye in its recent decision.

  In July 2014, Ye founded a store to distribute jewelry under the brand of 周百福. On June 7, 2016, the former Industry and Commerce Administration of Haizhu District inspected the store after receiving a tip from an unidentified company, and discovered some goods questionable for trademark infringement. On September 30, 2016, the administration issued a penalty notice, holding Ye culpable for trademark infringement and imposing 80,000 yuan in fines and seized the goods in question. Immediately after, Chanel sued Ye at Haizhu Court on the ground of trademark infringement. The court then ordered Ye to pay Chanel a reduced amount of 60,000 yuan after taking other factors into consideration.

  Ye then appealed to Guangzhou IP Court. After hearing, the court held that, firstly, Chanel failed to provide enough evidence to prove that Ye has used a trademark similar to Chanel to attract customers or distribute goods in the store.

  Secondly, there is no evidence to prove Ye has mislead consumers by claiming the goods in question were made by Chanel. In parallel, there is also no evidence to prove that ordinary consumers with general acknowledgement were made to believe they were purchasing Chanelmade goods.

  Thirdly, under the circumstance that no evidence can prove Ye has caused confusion among the public as it sold goods similar to the registered trademark of Chanel, the trademark infringement was not constituted according to the law.

  Accordingly, the court made the second-instance decision in favor of Ye. (by Jiang Xu, Xiao Shengcheng)

(Editor Shao Jingjing)

  (All contents of this newspaper may not be reproduced or used without express permission)
主办单位:中国知识产权报社 未经许可不得复制