Page 134 - 2019 White Paper on the Business Environment in China
P. 134
9 White Paper on the Business Environment in China
through information networks for works of art of the Case Summary: Land Rover’s affiliated companies
manuscript, and thus shall assume the liabilities for
infringement, including ceasing of infringement, an applied for registration in China, for No. 808460 “ ”
apology, and compensation for losses. As such, the Court
of Second Hearing held that Classic Auction shall make a Trademark in 1996, No. 3514202 “路虎” Trademark in
public apology to Shen Weining, Shen Danyan and Shen
Maiheng, and compensate their economic losses in the 2004, and No. 4309460 “LANDROVER” trademark in 2005,
amount of 100,000 yuan.
all of which were verified for use of a product in Class
Significance: This case refers to the relationship
of rights and obligations of relevant subjects in the 12 of “Land Vehicles”, and enjoyed a good reputation.
overlap of the Copyright Law, the Property Law, and the
Auction Law with respect to auctions of works of art. The said trademarks were then transferred to Land
The judgment of the Second Hearing balanced the legal
rights and interests of the property owners and the Rover. Fenli Company used the marks, including “路虎”,
copyright owners, and specified the auctioneer’s duty
of care for intellectual property protection. The said “LANDROVER”, “Landrover路虎” and “路虎LandRover”
judgment states that if the copyright and the property
rights of the art works are separated, the owner of the arranged vertically, in the promotion for the “Land Rover
original copies may exercise its rights of disposing,
profiting, and exhibition pursuant to laws. Such action Vitamin Beverage” they sell, as well as on the relevant
is protected by the Law and the copyright holder has
no right to interfere with it. However, the owner of the products, packaging boxes and its website. In 2010,
original copies shall exercise its property right provided
that such action shall not damage the legal rights of Fenli Company applied for registration of the trademark
the copyright holder. As an auctioneer authorized
by the property owner, in addition to duty of care for “路虎LANDROVER” for the products in Class 30 “non-
property right protection, an auction company shall
assume reasonable duty of care for copyright protection, medicinal nutrition liquid” and Class 32 “non-alcoholic
remain responsible and proper in the course of auction
activities, and prudently avoid infringement of the beverage”; however, its applications was not approved
copyright owner’s rights and interests. The definition
for the restrictions of the rights of different subjects for registration. Land Rover filed a lawsuit against
provided in the judgment shows the judicial spirit that
the legal rights and interests of a property owner and a Fenli Company, claiming that its actions constituted
copyright owner are equally protected; the identification
on the duty of care required of an auction company’s infringement. The Court of First Hearing ordered Fenli
reasonable standards for a responsible auctioneer fully
shows the judicial orientation that such legal rights and Company to stop the infringement, and compensate
interests are strictly protected.
Land Rover for its financial losses and its reasonable
“Land Rover” Trademark Infringement Dispute
expenses incurred for protection of its rights, in the
Jaguar Land Rover Co., Ltd. vs. Guangzhou Fenli
Foods Co., Ltd. (hereinafter, “Fenli Company”) and Wan amount of 1.2 million yuan. The Court of the Second
Mingzheng regarding dispute over infringement on
trademark rights [(2017) Guangdong Civil Final Hearing Hearing held that, as the evidence submitted by Land
No. 633 Civil Judgment issued by Guangdong Higher
People’s Court]. Rover was sufficient to prove that the trademarks
involved in this case had been highly recognized in
China, the infringement by Fenli Company has impaired
the distinctiveness and good reputation of Land Rover’s
famous trademark, and has caused damages to Land
Rover’s rights. Therefore, the infringement shall be
restrained. As a result, the Court of the Second Hearing
rejected the appeal made by Fenli Company, and
sustained the judgment of the First Hearing.
Significance: This typical case concerns the cross-
category protection of famous trademarks and
requirements for a boost of intellectual property
protection. In addition to the basic principles such as
“determined by requirements” and “determined by
specific cases” required in the cases of protection for
well-known trademarks, the judgment in this case,
particularly, shows that Fenli Company had attempted
to registered not only the marks infringed in this case,
but also many other trademarks owned by well-known
companies and famous people prior to the application
for registration. Its ill intentions could be clearly seen
from its infringement. With respect to the amount of
compensation determined in this case, the judgment
thoroughly identified the facts and its legal basis for the
compensation in the amount of 1.2 million yuan, which
demonstrates the judicial perspective that malicious
134
through information networks for works of art of the Case Summary: Land Rover’s affiliated companies
manuscript, and thus shall assume the liabilities for
infringement, including ceasing of infringement, an applied for registration in China, for No. 808460 “ ”
apology, and compensation for losses. As such, the Court
of Second Hearing held that Classic Auction shall make a Trademark in 1996, No. 3514202 “路虎” Trademark in
public apology to Shen Weining, Shen Danyan and Shen
Maiheng, and compensate their economic losses in the 2004, and No. 4309460 “LANDROVER” trademark in 2005,
amount of 100,000 yuan.
all of which were verified for use of a product in Class
Significance: This case refers to the relationship
of rights and obligations of relevant subjects in the 12 of “Land Vehicles”, and enjoyed a good reputation.
overlap of the Copyright Law, the Property Law, and the
Auction Law with respect to auctions of works of art. The said trademarks were then transferred to Land
The judgment of the Second Hearing balanced the legal
rights and interests of the property owners and the Rover. Fenli Company used the marks, including “路虎”,
copyright owners, and specified the auctioneer’s duty
of care for intellectual property protection. The said “LANDROVER”, “Landrover路虎” and “路虎LandRover”
judgment states that if the copyright and the property
rights of the art works are separated, the owner of the arranged vertically, in the promotion for the “Land Rover
original copies may exercise its rights of disposing,
profiting, and exhibition pursuant to laws. Such action Vitamin Beverage” they sell, as well as on the relevant
is protected by the Law and the copyright holder has
no right to interfere with it. However, the owner of the products, packaging boxes and its website. In 2010,
original copies shall exercise its property right provided
that such action shall not damage the legal rights of Fenli Company applied for registration of the trademark
the copyright holder. As an auctioneer authorized
by the property owner, in addition to duty of care for “路虎LANDROVER” for the products in Class 30 “non-
property right protection, an auction company shall
assume reasonable duty of care for copyright protection, medicinal nutrition liquid” and Class 32 “non-alcoholic
remain responsible and proper in the course of auction
activities, and prudently avoid infringement of the beverage”; however, its applications was not approved
copyright owner’s rights and interests. The definition
for the restrictions of the rights of different subjects for registration. Land Rover filed a lawsuit against
provided in the judgment shows the judicial spirit that
the legal rights and interests of a property owner and a Fenli Company, claiming that its actions constituted
copyright owner are equally protected; the identification
on the duty of care required of an auction company’s infringement. The Court of First Hearing ordered Fenli
reasonable standards for a responsible auctioneer fully
shows the judicial orientation that such legal rights and Company to stop the infringement, and compensate
interests are strictly protected.
Land Rover for its financial losses and its reasonable
“Land Rover” Trademark Infringement Dispute
expenses incurred for protection of its rights, in the
Jaguar Land Rover Co., Ltd. vs. Guangzhou Fenli
Foods Co., Ltd. (hereinafter, “Fenli Company”) and Wan amount of 1.2 million yuan. The Court of the Second
Mingzheng regarding dispute over infringement on
trademark rights [(2017) Guangdong Civil Final Hearing Hearing held that, as the evidence submitted by Land
No. 633 Civil Judgment issued by Guangdong Higher
People’s Court]. Rover was sufficient to prove that the trademarks
involved in this case had been highly recognized in
China, the infringement by Fenli Company has impaired
the distinctiveness and good reputation of Land Rover’s
famous trademark, and has caused damages to Land
Rover’s rights. Therefore, the infringement shall be
restrained. As a result, the Court of the Second Hearing
rejected the appeal made by Fenli Company, and
sustained the judgment of the First Hearing.
Significance: This typical case concerns the cross-
category protection of famous trademarks and
requirements for a boost of intellectual property
protection. In addition to the basic principles such as
“determined by requirements” and “determined by
specific cases” required in the cases of protection for
well-known trademarks, the judgment in this case,
particularly, shows that Fenli Company had attempted
to registered not only the marks infringed in this case,
but also many other trademarks owned by well-known
companies and famous people prior to the application
for registration. Its ill intentions could be clearly seen
from its infringement. With respect to the amount of
compensation determined in this case, the judgment
thoroughly identified the facts and its legal basis for the
compensation in the amount of 1.2 million yuan, which
demonstrates the judicial perspective that malicious
134
