Chinese Clothing "Foreign Money" Repeatedly Complained Of Infringement

"P >" after the enterprises become bigger and stronger, there are many Chinese sports "a target=" _blank "href=" //www.sjfzxm.com/ "> dress < /a > enterprises frequently involved in trademark infringement disputes.

Recently, SWAROVSKI stock company v. Shanghai warros dress Co., Ltd. had infringed the trademark right. The result was that it was sentenced to stop infringement and pay 300 thousand yuan.

On the other hand, the US basketball superstar Michael Jordan complained to Jordan sports that the right to name dispute was also held recently. However, Jordan's "Jordan" meant that the self defense of "Southern grass" was also challenged by netizens and Tucao.

Experts on Intellectual Property Rights said that the registered brand of Chinese enterprises should be considered from the long-term development of enterprises. No independent brand will bring risks to enterprises, and even bring huge losses.

< /p >

< p > SWAROVSKI won the right to win, and was awarded 300 thousand yuan < /p >.

< p > it is reported that Shanghai Shi Hua Luo dress limited company was founded in August 2004, mainly produces and manages all kinds of < a target= "_blank" href= "//www.sjfzxm.com/" > dress < /a > dress.

However, in 80s of last century, SWAROVSKI incorporated in China registered two trademarks of "SWAROVSKI" and "SWAROVSKI". The company believed that the company carried out commercial propaganda in the name of "Shi Hua Luo" and was suspected of infringement and unfair competition.

< /p >

< p > the court held that the "SWAROVSKI" crystal and related products were put into the Chinese market earlier, and for a long time advertising campaign, Shanghai swarovo dress Co., Ltd. should be aware of the popularity and influence of the trademark.

Shanghai Shi Hua Luo dress Co., Ltd. will still register with the well-known trademark "Shi Hua Luo" character as an enterprise name. It will inevitably cause the public to misunderstand the source of the exhibition merchandise, or think there is a certain relationship between the two. Its behavior constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition.

< /p >

< p > for this result, as of press release, SWAROVSKI's responsible person did not reply to the questions raised by our reporter.

< /p >

< p > Jordan's self defense of sports is not convincing, but it challenges /p.

< p > April 27th, Michael Jordan claimed Jordan's sports name right dispute in second middle court of Shanghai.

The reporter learned from public information that the dispute between Michael Jordan and Jordan's right to name infringement began in February 23, 2012 when Michael Jordan filed a lawsuit against Jordan sports for abusing his name and image without authorization.

The second middle school of Shanghai accepted the case in March 5, 2012.

< /p >

< p > the most direct impact of this lawsuit on Jordan sports is that the road to IPO listing has been forced to stop after the approval of the SFC, and Jordan sports has no access to the A share market.

This lawsuit has added some sad colors to Jordan's sports, attracting the sympathy of many people in the industry.

However, in this debate, Jordan sports brand "Jordan" means "the south of the grass" argument attracted netizens questioned.

Netizens said that the official website of Jordan sports did not find any slogans or image labels related to "grass in the South".

< /p >

Li Shunde, deputy director of the intellectual property center of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said in an interview with the media that Jordan's sports trademark also included a pattern of basketball players. In addition, the Chinese plation of Jordan's two sons was registered, which in itself was suspicious.

< /p >

< p > although Jordan sports once announced the cancellation of some "potentially misunderstood defensive trademarks", including the trademark "Jeffrey Jordan", "Markus Jordan", "JIEFULI QIAODAN", "MAKUSI QIAODAN" and their variants, which are consistent with the names of Jordan's two sons, they are regarded as a manifestation of guilt.

< /p >

< p > for this, Zhao Zhanling, a researcher at the intellectual property center of China University of Political Science and Law, said that when Chinese enterprises build their own brands in the early stage, they can only use the names of others or the names of well-known products to register trademarks, which can only be short-term behavior.

In the long run, no independent brand will bring risks and even huge losses to enterprises.

< /p >

< p > correlation < /p >.

In the case of trademark infringement disputes in foreign brands, the trademark dispute between Gucci and Guess is also the focus of attention of the industry. < p >

Although Gucci had sued the case of Guess in the United States, the lawsuit in Milan has undergone dramatic changes. Milan court sentenced Gucci to sue for Guess trademark infringement.

< /p >

< p > according to foreign media reports, in May 2nd, Milan court sentenced Gucci to prosecute Guess trademark infringement case.

In this regard, Gucci said, "there will be no doubt that it will appeal", while Guess criticized Gucci for relying on financial resources to "bully" Guess.

In May 3rd, GUES released the news of winning the lawsuit on the official website.

GUESS said in a statement that the Milan court's 83 page ruling rejected all claims made by the Florence company's Guccio Gucci SpA, which is owned by the Gucci brand. Meanwhile, the Milan court cancelled the registered trademark of the Gucci rhombus "G" letter LOGO and Flora, including 3 Italy registered trademarks and 4 EU registered trademarks.

< /p >

< p > it is reported that as early as 2009, Gucci sued Guess trademark infringement in New York, Milan, Paris and Nanjing.

In May 2012, the federal court of Manhattan sentenced GUESS to compensate Gucci $4 million 660 thousand. The court also sentenced Guess to permanent use of Gucci's rhomboid "G" letters, green, red and green stripes and other "G" letters.

Insiders say that because of the different cognition and judgement of intellectual property cases in different countries, different judgments result.

< /p >