• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Karl-Hermann Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Dr. Christoph Hölscher
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Chinese Court ruled infringement of domestic shoemakers: “N” logo and footwear New Balance

31. August 2017

Unexpected judgement:  a Chinese court has been ordered three domestic shoemakers to pay the American footwear producer New Balance over 10 million yuan (US $1.5 million) and ruled them for trademark infringement of the “N” logo. This decision was made just in time at the beginning of the China Trademark Festival 2017, taking place in Guangxi, China,  September 1st to 4th. The judgement sets a signal for fair trade and trials und could establish welcome legal certainty for foreign companies and their trademark protection. 

The ink has hardly dried on the newest issue of Donald Trump about investigation against China and it’s Intellectual property theft,  a Chinese Court surprises by announcing an unexpected judgement. In a legal dispute between brand shoemaker New Balance and three Chinese shoemakers the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court, near Shanghai, held that the domestic footwear producer would infringe the American sportswear company’s signature slanting “N” logo. The Chinese court has ruled that the three domestic shoemakers must pay New Balance $1.5 million in damages and legal costs for the infringing the “N” logo. The involved Chinese shoemakers are Zheng Chaozhong, Xin Ping Heng Sporting Goods Limited Company and Bo Si Da Ke Trading Limited.

Judgement in case New Balance sets a signal for fair trade and trials

This decision is the more surprising because many critics claim that China’s restrictions lead to the theft of intellectual property. Especially the handling of US companies based in China led president Donald Trump to his investigation of the Chinese dealing with intellectual property. The main focus is on the requirements of the People’s Republic for foreign companies, after which the companies must their Chinese partners grant access to their technology. The court ruling might reflect the Chinese government’s determination to find a solution to the problem of piracy.

ChinaThe case New Balance and it’s logo is therefore very interesting. New Balance was founded in 1906 and owns dozens of trademarks for their products. The sportive footwear was made famous by legendery Steve Jobs, who wore grey 991er sportshoes of New Balance as reported by German Wikipedia. With regard to the discussed N logo there are trademark protections for example for New Balance, the New Balance logo, the flying NB logo, the N design and the logos of New Balance Stores. Today, New Balance’s products are marketed in 120 countries on all continents. China has also become a production site for the American footwear company. New Balance has started it’s presence in China in 1995. In that time of economic boom in China many consumer producers recorded significant increases in sales volumes, and so did New Balance, too. Simultaneous the famous shoes attracted imitators, some of them copying everything about a brand. Counterfeiters themselves could try to register foreign trademarks using the Chinese rule that trademarks are awarded to the first company to file for them.

China has been strengthening it’s trademark laws

China has been strengthening it’s trademark laws since joining the World Trade Organization in 2001. But often foreign companies couldn’t get any far less any high damage awards. The US $1.5 million ruling now is a result of new trademark legislation in China that took place in 2014, though small by international standards. A new law include higher thresholds for statutory damages. The Chinese public authorities have made major advances in recent years concerning their possibilities to fight product and trademark piracy and trademark abuse.  The current judgment is a further strengthening for Western brands in an intellectual property infringement case in China, and moreover the damages are far larger than usually been granted by Chinese courts.

New Balance itself delivers a benchmark to the damage award.

“In April 2015, a Chinese court fined New Balance around US $16 million after it lost a lawsuit to a man who had registered the trademark for the Chinese name of New Balance. The American company appealed and the fine was later reduced to about US $700,000. New Balance is appealing the decision, which would go to China’s Supreme Court, according to Daniel McKinnon, New Balance’s senior counsel for intellectual property.

Chinese law does not follow precedent, but courts around the country do look to decisions nationwide for cues. As a result, Scott Palmer, an intellectual property lawyer at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, which represents American corporations in China, said the New Balance ruling bodes well for a number of cases that he has before the courts.”

(Quote: Sue-Lee Wee, New York Times)

chinesischAnother famous legal case in the world of sport sent a message of the Chinese government of fighting against trademark piracy, too. Since 2012 the basketball star Michael Jordan sued a Chinese sports article manufacturer “Qiaodan”, that used the Chinese version as name for the company and for marketing (Qiaodan, pronounced “chee-ow Dahn,” is a mandarin transliteration of “Jordan”).  Moreover the Chinese defendant also provided it’s products with the logo “Jumpman”, that looked very much like the designed basketball player on the “Air Jordan” products by the US manufacturer Nike. Michael Jordan has failed in his claim in summer 2015 before the Beijing Municipal High People’s Court, but in December 2016 China’s Supreme People’s Court has ruled the Chinese “Qiadon” company for trademark infringement. Maybe confidence can be renewed in the protection of intellectual-property in China.

You want to protect your brand for the Chinese market? Read more articles about Chinese trademark protection!

  • How to translate and protect your brand for the Chinese market
  • IP infringement in China: It’s not as bad as all that!
  • Myth of Evidence in Chinese Trademark Cases by Gloria Q. Wu

You wonder how to protect your trademark in China?

Our patent attorneys are experienced in trademark and patent law, national and international law. Take your chance and agree on a joint telephone call. 

You can request a call-back without any obligations at:

CAT-call_en

Sources:
Sue-Lee Wee, New York Times
Images:  rachelf2 / pixabay.com / CCO License || Couleur / pixabay.com / CCO License  || nyochi / pixabay.com / CCO License
  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconProduct- and Trademark piracy,  Trademark Law Tag iconChina,  Trademark

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Product- and Trademark piracy

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022
  • EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible 24. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

25. February 2022
CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

24. February 2022
EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

21. February 2022
CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

15. February 2022
SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

14. February 2022
Crypto trading: NFT for luxury and art

Crypto trading: NFT for luxury and art

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Torhaus Westhafen
Speicherstrasse 59
D – 60327 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

© Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]