As one of the world’s most influential fashion companies, Louis Vuitton has a number of world-famous trademarks specialising in the manufacture and sale of leather goods, clothing, jewelry and many more. For more than 150 years, the firm has combined the letters “L” and “V” in its name, and has registered the trademark in more than 100 countries and regions. In China, its trademark was applied for registration on 18 February, 1985, and is registered in the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, with the registration number 241081.
However, in Huicheng District of Guangzhou there was found to be a bar/pub named “Shili Yangfang”, using the “LV” logo for its name, interior/exterior decoration, advertisements, operating facilities and articles, as well as promotional videos/images. The owner of the bar had also promoted his business via its official WeChat account, Weibo and other social media, using such terminology as “CLUB LV – Top Nightclub Brand in Europe”.
Louis Vuitton moved to file a lawsuit with the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court, requesting court orders that the defendant, surnamed Hu, as the owner of this Bar, cease the trademark infringement and make a public apology published in newspapers, while compensating the plaintiff for its economic losses and reasonable costs incurred.
- The Role Played by Character in China’s Legal System
- AI Face Swapping; the Legalities of Personal Data Security
- Sexual Harassment & Other Illegalities in the Gyms of China
Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court deemed that, according to the Trademark Law and relevant judicial interpretations, reproduction, imitation or translation of a famous trademark, or major part thereof, which has been registered by others, on any different or dissimilar commodities (services) as a trademark, which may mislead the public, cause the relevant public to believe in a considerable degree of relevance between the alleged trademark and the famous one, impair the distinctiveness of the famous trademark, and damage the interests of the registrant of the famous trademark, shall be deemed to infringe the exclusive right to use the registered trademark.
According to Article 48 of the Trademark Law, the use of trademarks refers to the affixation of trademarks to commodities, commodity packaging or containers, as well as commodity exchange documents, or the use of trademarks in advertisements, exhibitions or other commercial activities, in order to identify the source of the goods.
In this case, Hu used the English letters “LV” on signage, decorations, advertisements, an WeChat official account, the bar name, operating facilities and articles with respect to his bar. It was obvious that the alleged logo, LV, was used for identifying the service source. Therefore, its usage met the definition as provided in the aforementioned law.
- Laws of Living; 4 Top Legal Concepts for Foreigners in China
- China Firm’s Theft of First Ever Photo of Black Hole
- Economic Stimulation; Golden Week vs. Long Weekends
It was found that after comparison, the alleged trademark “LV” and the registered trademark of Louis Vuitton in the overlapping combination form of LV were composed of the English capital letters “L” and “V”, but that a slight difference existed in the layout of the English letters. Such was insufficient to cause the relevant public to believe that the alleged trademark and the registered trademark of Louis Vuitton in an overlapping combination were not similar. Therefore, the two marks were deemed similar and Hu’s use of the mark constituted trademark infringement.
As a result, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court ruled that the defendant Hu should immediately cease infringing the exclusive right to use the plaintiff’s registered trademark “LV”, Patent No. 241081, and compensate the plaintiff for its economic losses and reasonable costs; ¥530,000 in total.
Copyrights, patent rights and trademarks are some of the main aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). The infringement of IPR is a unique kind of theft, allowing infringers to gain benefits without creativity. Such acts not only disturb the order of the market economy, but damage the interests of right holders while going against the spirit of innovation in both enterprises and society at large.
DISCLAIMER
This article is intended solely for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Although the information in this article was obtained from reliable official sources, no guarantee is made with regard to its accuracy and completeness. For more information please visit dandreapartners.com or WeChat: dandreapartners
