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

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • 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. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Lego victorious in counterfeiting file against China-blocks

11. December 2017

Lego was victorious in counterfeiting file against Chinese companies in a Chinese Court for the first time. This concerns the Lego series “Friends”, whose copies were sold in China under the name “Bela”.

LegoAs Lego announced on Thursday, the China Shantou Intermediate Court ruled that certain Bela products infringe Lego’s copyrights. Manufacture and sale represented unfair competition. The Court of First Instance also pointed out that certain aspects of the packaging had an unmistakable and unique appearance, which were protected by competition law. Manufacture and sale represented unfair competition.

The Danish toy manufacturer had filed a complaint against two Chinese companies, whose copies resembled those of the Friends series and were sold in China under the name Bela. Amongst others, the Chinese companies LELE, LEPIN and LOZ where suspected of operating counterfeit products. The defendant companies will now have to stop copying Lego’s packaging and logos.

Cheap copies from China of its colourful bricks and figures have been a current problem for Lego. In the middle of the year, however, the Group was strengthened by a ruling of the Supreme Court in Beijing, which recognized the Lego logo and name as well known trademarks in China.

This puts Lego in a better position to take action against trademark infringement. The Chinese toy market is of great importance to the company.

Trademark Law in China: Evidence is a myth
In recent years, trademark owners have repeatedly experienced disappointment that they were unable to assert themselves in opposition, nullity or trademark litigation before Chinese courts. Often the cases were not supported because of insufficient evidence. For many, especially foreign trademark owners, the evidential value is a myth. The main difference to foreign procedures is the formality of the documents. Purchase contracts, purchase orders and invoices, as well as customs declaration forms should always be accompanied by official Chinese confirmation. The same applies to the reputation of a mark, which Lego received in the summer with the decision of the Supreme Court in Beijing: the reputation of a mark is an important part of all trade mark disputes, as it is used by the courts because of its earlier use over the same/similar goods/services or about well-known marks in connection with unfair competition.

The decision was already made in September this year. However, this case was not closed until Thursday when Bela finally decided against an appeal.

 

You want national or international protection for your trademark?

Our lawyers advise you individually and together with you develop the right strategy to protect your trademark.

CAT-call_en

 

Sources:

Lego Klone

Blick

stellabelle /pixabay.com / CCO License  

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

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

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

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • 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

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:

3. June 2024
What is the public allowed to know?

What is the public allowed to know?

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

Contact us or request a call back

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

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 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

Newsletter INT

© MD LEGAL Patentanwalt, European Patent Attorney PartG

Contact Form

 

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

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

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

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

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

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.