Guangzhou intellectual property court revoked the judgment of first instance in the judgment of second instance, held that Chanel did not have sufficient evidence to show that the defendant ye had infringed or falsified Chanel's' double C 'trademark, and ruled that ye's exclusive right to the registered trademark did not constitute an infringement.
The Guangzhou intellectual property court held that "there is no sufficient evidence that the shape of the goods involved was used as a trademark when the store operated by ye sold the goods involved." In addition, the court held that there was no evidence that ye misled consumers about the source of the product in any way, and there was no evidence that 'ordinary consumers with general cognitive level would think they were buying Chanel products.'
The infringement case began in 2016. In June of that year, after being exposed anonymously, the former Haizhu District Administration for Industry and Commerce of Guangzhou went to the jewelry store operated by Ye mouzong for inspection and found a number of suspected infringing goods. The jewelry store is a franchise store of zhoubaifu, a brand of Hong Kong zhoubaifu Jewelry International Group Co., Ltd. President Ye started to operate this jewelry store in 2014.
The suspected infringing jewelry found by the former Haizhu District Administration for Industry and Commerce contained Chanel's' double C 'shape. After on-site identification by Chanel's agent, it was considered that the goods constituted an infringement of Chanel's exclusive right to use a registered trademark. The former Haizhu District Administration for Industry and commerce immediately decided to file a case for investigation. On September 30 of the same year, the government department made an administrative punishment, considered that ye constituted trademark infringement, ordered ye to compensate Chanel 80000 yuan and confiscated the goods involved.
A few months later, Chanel took ye to court on the grounds of trademark infringement and counterfeiting, requesting the court to order ye to compensate Chanel's economic loss of 100000 yuan. Although Ye argued that the jewelry store he operated was only a 'zhoubaifu' franchise store, and the goods sold were sent to zhoubaifu for inspection and put on the zhoubaifu brand label, the relevant products involved went through the same procedures before sales. Ye believes that he should not be listed as a defendant. In addition, the products seized in Ye's store were not sold and did not cause Chanel loss.
However, in the first instance, the Zhuhai court found that ye's unauthorized use of the 'double C' icon infringed the exclusive right to use the registered trademark of Chanel company. Considering the damage degree, business form, business scope, business scale, infringement event, infringement area, value of infringing goods and other factors to Chanel, Ye was determined to compensate Chanel 60000 yuan as appropriate.
Ye expressed dissatisfaction with the result of the first instance judgment, and then appealed to the Guangzhou intellectual property court. In his appeal, ye mouzong held that the procedure for Chanel's agent to identify the goods involved as infringing goods on site did not have credibility. At the same time, ye questioned, 'can infringement be determined only by the shape of the product?' In other words, 'jewelry involved & lsquo; Dual C & rsquo; Should shape be regarded as a trademark or as a decorative function? If & lsquo; Dual C & rsquo; The trademark has identification function. Is it possible for consumers to be confused about the source of the product?
In response to Ye's query, the Guangzhou intellectual property court first held that "Chanel company did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that when selling the goods involved, the store operated by ye had used the goods similar to the registered trademark of Chanel company to attract customers, promote goods and use them as trademarks." Therefore, the court revoked Ye's determination of Chanel trademark infringement in the first instance judgment.
As for whether it misled the public, the Guangzhou intellectual property court held that "in this case, there was no evidence to prove that the store operated by Ye mouzong misled consumers when selling the goods involved, publicized and marked them as Chanel's goods, so that consumers mistakenly recognized them as Chanel's goods when purchasing."
According to the report of China intellectual property news, 'in the view of industry experts, the handling idea of the second instance of the case reflects the innovation of the trial concept. For trade mark intellectual property rights such as trademarks, commodity packaging and decoration, we should combine the distinction and elasticity of the scope of protection, not only to maintain a sufficient distance between trade marks, but also to enable the public to freely learn from and imitate outside the scope of rights. "
Chanel has had a lot of litigation experience in order to protect trademark rights and brand image. Chanel has almost zero tolerance for any counterfeit trademarks and brands that may cause misunderstanding. Last year, the company even sued an independent retail store in Michigan to prevent the brand from doing business under the name of 'shanel'.
In addition, with the rise of second-hand luxury online platforms in recent years, Chanel has also targeted these emerging e-commerce platforms, including taking popular second-hand e-commerce such as' the real 'and' what goes around comes around 'which are preparing for IPO to court on the grounds of cracking down on counterfeiters and selling fake goods.