In 1994, Novo Nordisk Company set up a fully owned subsidiary in China. After authorization, the subsidiary is the only licensee of Novo Nordisk's No.712538诺和诺德, No. G759747A NOVO NORDISK and its figure, No. 8086078 NOVO NORDISK and its figure and it has the right to safeguard in its name.
The subsidiary brought a case to Guangzhou IP Court and claimed that an individual surname Di, the actual controller of Shenyang Qiledadi Trade Company, has not only registered the诺和诺德 and novo nordisk trademark in bad faith, but also established the Guangzhou Nuohe Medical Equipment Company to manufacture and distribute health shoes for diabetes-inflicted feet with novo nordisk symbol. In parallel, Di also set up Nuohenuode (Note: Chinese pronunciation of诺和诺德) Hong Kong S&T Company in Hong Kong SAR and used诺和诺德 in health shoes promotion. The three defendants are suspected of trademark infringement and unfair competition.
The court held that the four prior registered trademarks have become famous in diabetic treatment after many years of use and heavy advertising. The defendants used the above two trademarks in question on contested goods and marked they were made by Guangzhou Nuohe Medical Equipment Company. Such actions would mislead the public about the original of goods or it has certain relationship with Novo Nordisk's registered trademark. So the trademark used on the infringing goods constituted the same or similar trademark with prior trademarks, and infringed the exclusive right of Novo Nordisk.
The court held that although the novo nordisk and诺和诺德 trademarks have been registered, their operation beyond the approved scope did not belong to exercise of trademark right accordance with law, and it could not qualify as the excuse for trademark infringement.
As for the novo nordisk and诺和诺德 trademarks used on Class 25 goods, Qiledadi Company and Di argued that they have no nexus with the Novo Nordisk drugs used on humans, which would not cause confusion among the public. The court held that although the above two trademarks have been registered, their operation beyond the approved scope did not belong to exercise of trademark right accordance with law, and it could not qualify as the excuse for trademark infringement.
The disgruntled three defendants then brought the case to Guangdong High People's Court. Recently, the court rejected the appealand upheld the trial-court decision.
(by Jiang Xu/Xiao Shengcheng)
（Editor: Li Xingyi Intern: Shao Jingjing）
（All contents of this news may not be reproduced or used without express permission）