MK, POLO, Levi's and other trademarks are familiar brand symbols in the minds of consumers, but it is possible that you may have mistaken them from the beginning. Recently, Beijing Haidian Court and Shanghai Intellectual Property Court respectively made judgments on the "MK" series trademarks and "POLO" series trademarks. In addition, Levi's has recently filed another lawsuit against designer Philipp Plein after more than 300 lawsuits for trademark infringement.
The "MK" trademark case has been sentenced to a maximum compensation of 5 million yuan
Recently, the Haidian Court concluded a trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute involving the "MK" series of trademarks. The plaintiff, a limited liability company, is a provider of luggage and clothing for the luxury fashion brand "MICHAEL KORS". The plaintiff found that a leather goods limited company, a brand management company, and a trading limited company (hereinafter referred to as the three defendants) jointly produced and sold bags that used infringing logos similar to the "MK" and "MICHAEL KORS" series trademarks, and used similar packaging decorations. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the court, demanding that the three defendants stop infringing and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses of 5 million yuan. After trial, the Haidian Court determined that the three defendants' alleged actions infringed upon the plaintiff's "MK" series trademark rights and constituted unfair competition. The court ordered the three defendants to cease infringement and fully supported the plaintiff's claims for economic losses and reasonable expenses. After the verdict, neither party appealed and the verdict has now come into effect.
The court believes that the plaintiff extensively and continuously used the decorative elements involved in the case on their packaging, and the old floral pattern has formed a stable correspondence with their packaging, which belongs to a decoration with certain influence. The accused decoration used on the package in question makes the two visually almost indistinguishable, and based on the general attention of the relevant public, it is highly likely to cause confusion. Therefore, it is determined that the use of the accused decoration in question violates Article 6, Paragraph 1 of the Anti Unfair Competition Law and constitutes unfair competition.
According to the "Judge's Statement" released by the Haidian Court in Beijing, the plaintiff's "MK" series trademarks and floral decorations enjoy a high level of popularity, which stems from the plaintiff's long-term and extensive efforts. The plaintiff carefully maintains its brand positioning and has invested enormous manpower, material resources, and financial resources in this regard. The protection of trademark rights must be conducive to encouraging fair competition, clarifying the convenience between commercial logos, curbing malicious registration of other people's well-known commercial logos and "brand name" behavior, and providing a strong legal environment for the establishment and development of well-known brands.
The 'real and fake POLO' case has undergone a major reversal after eight years
The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court recently made a first instance civil judgment on a series of trademark infringement cases filed by Polo/Lauren Co., Ltd., Ralph Lauren Asia Pacific Co., Ltd., and Ralph Lauren Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. against Shanghai Ruifa Clothing Co., Ltd., Qingyuan Huahao Zhibai Leather Clothing Products Co., Ltd., Guangzhou Huahao Industrial Co., Ltd., and Luoding Yasi Clothing Co., Ltd. The court ruled that the defendant's use of "POLO" and "POLO SPORT" constitutes trademark infringement and must immediately cease all infringing activities, including stopping the use of similar trademarks, stopping the sale of goods with similar trademarks, and paying a total compensation of 20 million yuan.
This "real and fake POLO" trademark infringement case lasted for eight years. Ralph Lauren discovered in 2011 that a large number of local Chinese retailers were using trademarks such as "POLO SPORT" and "POLO GOFT" to produce clothing and open stores after implementing comprehensive direct sales in the Chinese market. In 2016, it officially filed a series of civil infringement lawsuits, with defendants including Shanghai Ruifa, Guangzhou Huahao, Qingyuan Huahao, and Guangzhou Aichi Leather Goods Co., Ltd. In 2018, the Chaoyang District People's Court of Beijing made a first instance judgment, determining that the use of "POLO" and other logos on Ralph Lauren's backpack and accessory products infringed upon the exclusive trademark rights of Guangzhou Aichi Company. The court rejected the lawsuit filed by Polo/Lauren Co., Ltd. and upheld the registration of Guangzhou Aichi Leather Goods Co., Ltd.'s series of trademarks such as "POLO SPORT" and graphic trademarks. And ruled to compensate Guangzhou Aichi Company for a total economic loss of 90 million yuan. This verdict has sparked widespread discussion within the industry, with the belief that it is a "fake POLO" that has defeated the "real POLO". In 2021, Ralph Lauren's legal team made progress through both administrative and civil litigation. The Beijing High People's Court has made a second instance administrative judgment, determining that the "POLO SPORT" series of trademarks claimed by the defendant in the case should be invalidated.
Previously, Guangzhou Aichi and its affiliates had successfully registered or applied for nearly 200 trademarks in China. The store scale extended from a large number of infringing trademarks is huge, and by granting authorization to agents, more than 600 stores were opened nationwide at one point. The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court considered the defendant's diverse, wide-ranging, and long-lasting infringement behaviors, and therefore ordered the defendant to compensate 20 million yuan, taking into account these factors.
Polo/Lauren Limited applied for the "POLO RALPH LAUREN"+graphic trademark in China in 1985.
One focal point of the game between the two parties in related infringement cases is whether the term "POLO" can be exclusive to Ralph Lauren in trademark registration. The Chinese meaning of "POLO" is "polo". POLO shirts were originally worn by nobles when playing polo. Later, Ralph Lauren launched a specific style of top, which was very popular among consumers and introduced this style to the polo and other sports industries, as well as casual wear. Polo/Lauren Limited applied for the "POLO RALPH LAUREN"+graphic trademark in China on December 19, 1985, with the trademark category being Class 25. However, the defendant also applied for the "POLO SPORT" trademark, and Polo/Lauren Co., Ltd. filed an invalidation declaration on the trademark to the China National Intellectual Property Administration. It further clarified that at the beginning of the establishment of the brand, it carried out a large number of commercial activities with "POLO" as the core logo. After the final trial by the Beijing High People's Court, it was determined that "POLO SPORT" is a registered trademark and therefore an invalid trademark.
The defendant has also applied for the trademark "POLO SPORT".
Ralph Lauren's legal team revealed that they have handled nearly 600 cases from the first trial to the second trial. They welcome this verdict and are encouraged by the Chinese government's determination and practical measures in protecting intellectual property rights and creating a fair market environment. A person familiar with the case revealed to the media that one of the reasons why the court supports Ralph Lauren is its determination to crack down on such large-scale infringements, which has established confidence for more brands committed to increasing investment and development in China to protect their intellectual property rights.
Levi's has filed over 300 lawsuits for trademark infringement
Levi Strauss&Co., a denim clothing group; Co. Levi's recently filed a lawsuit against designer Philipp Plein, alleging that the labels used in their fashion designs infringed on Levi's iconic Tab trademark. Since its launch in 1936, this trademark has become an important symbol of the Levi's brand and was officially registered in 1938.
Levi's iconic Tab trademark.
Levi's stated that protecting intellectual property is not only to combat counterfeit goods, but also to maintain the assets and reputation accumulated by the brand over the years. This lawsuit follows Levi's similar legal actions against luxury brands Yves Saint Laurent, Kenzo, and Brunello Cucinelli in recent years, all centered around Levi's Tab trademark. This label is usually presented in red, but also includes multiple colors such as white, blue, black, silver, and orange.
In January of this year, Levi's filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Federal Court, attaching 14 photos of Italian luxury brand Brunello Cucinelli's clothing, claiming that its pocket labels were "almost identical" to the iconic rectangular pocket labels of its Levi's brand. Levi's stated that consumers may be confused by Brunello Cucinelli's similar designs, and continuing to sell its infringing clothing would result in Levi's potentially losing sales as a result. On May 7th, Levi's announced a settlement in its lawsuit with Brunello Cucinelli. Since 1989, Levi Strauss& Co. has filed over 300 lawsuits against other brands for trademark infringement, many of which have ended in out of court settlements.