At present, how to guide trademark •α™φrights holders' rights and in∞βterests as the focus ÷₩∞of civil litigation. Recentlλ&¥≥y, the Guangzhou Intellectual Propeβ÷rty Court sued the deale ÷‌γrs in China of the well-known cloth≥₩ing brand UNIQLO for the saleββ'♥s promotion of Guang♥✔zhou's Compass Conference & Exhib←₹®δition Services Co., Ltd. (hereinafte✘•r referred to as Comp÷ ✘&ass) and Guangzhou Zhong ♥$€wei Enterprise Management Consulting S©↓ervices Co., Ltd. (Zhon☆£gwei) China) Trading Co., Ltd•φ←≤. (hereinafter referred £∞★≤to as Fast Retailing Cor¥α‌poration), Fast Retailing (Ch"γ€λina) Trading Co., Lt≥λ←d. Guangzhou Baixin Squar∏ε€e store (hereinafter referred $∏→↑to as Fast Retailing Corpor₩¥α'ation Baixin Square store) infringem∏↓ent of trademark disputes T↕ Ωhe first instance verdict, fast ♠•marketing company and fasβ←t marketing company hundred le♣™•βtter plaza shop did not infringe ®↕the exclusive rights of registered t​€♦rademark.


Earlier in the first instance, Compass× ♠★ Company and Zhongwei≥÷✔≥ Company had sued Xunwei Xu¥∏↓nyi Co., Ltd. and Fast ₽γ♠→Retailing Co., Ltd. for pro↑‍↔Ωducing and selling the goods with t$•Ωhe logo (hereinafter ref→≤↔erred to as the called logo) inf"←αφringing upon their law↕€ ful ownership of a trademark (Herein÷∑after referred to as the tr§'‍$ademark dispute), the court of f>δ✘irst instance judged that the f≤•φast-moving company and the fast-moving ≤ company Baixin Plaza did not in¥★≥σfringe upon the trial.


Apparel logo trigger dispute


It is understood that comp♥≈φass company was established in J £∞uly 2004, the scope of b&₽<usiness including exhibition plannin​γ™≈g, exhibition leasing. The on↔∞ly company was establish↕↓ ≥ed in April 2005, mainly enga<'ged in business management c₹βε&onsulting, corporate image design, tra₽★•demark agents. On March ↓≈14, 2012, Compass Com'Ωpany and Zhongwei Com$‌♠→pany jointly applied for the reg∏™&δistration of the tra¥∏"±demark No. 10619071 to the Tra®∑<✔demark Office of the State Administ&π<ration for Industry and‍₩ Commerce and was subsequentl ™≠×y approved for use on  £25 types of shoes, caps an§§ d other products.


Founded in December 2↓β©006 Xun-marketing company, its shaσ±≥reholders for Japan Co., Ltd. Fσλ±ast Marketing (hereinafter referred to £∑"™as Japan's rapid marketing). ♦×φJapan Fast Retailing in 1995 to obtainα÷ No. 791494 "UNIQLO" registered ε♥trademark of exclusive rights, and in 2≠∞‌α003 No. 3012401 "UNIQLO" an↕♣✘d other registered trademark ₩♠rights. Fast marketing by ε∑•αthe Japanese fast-track company ↔‍​σin the business process, i♥☆n the promotion of relatedΩσβ≈ products, multiple use✔↔ of the "UNIQLO" "UNIQLO" and the →®♠≥indications were indicted.


Compass Company and the εφ↕only company that the general p¥πublic attention to the standard, the>✔ fast-track company, β<fast-track company Baixin Plaza×∑ , the accused logo and the challengeα↕≤ of trademark comparison, there is no s‍∞€βignificant difference betwδ een the two, easy to  ∏÷make the relevant The public mistaken ✘<♦←for the source of the goods,∏≥ both constitute the same♠<. In addition, the indications™♦ were used in clothin≈≥g and other related produ€∑♣≥cts, and the use of countervai♥₽Ω®ling trademark approved th↑↕e same goods, suspected of constit∑πα<uting trademark infr£" ingement.


Accordingly, Compass Company and Zhongw¶$♥ei Company sued Xunxiao Com☆α₽pany and Xinyi Baixin Plaza Stor≥→∞✔e to People's Court of Bβ£←±aiyun District, Guangzhouβα City, Guangdong Province (hereinaft★↕er referred to as Baiyu‌∞♦¥n District Court). After ™☆δhearing the court, Baiyun District‍​↔​ Court of First Insta•₽≥nce rendered a verdict of ¥≤€♥the first instance and found tha∞•t the indicted logo  γdid not constitute a violation ↑ ←↕of the exclusive right to contest →✘×&the trademark. Compass Company and Zho±δngwei Company refused to accept the‍↔∞× judgment of the first <‍☆instance and appealed to the Guangzho∑α♥u Intellectual Proper'​×ty Court.


The second instance verdict didσ∞ ÷ not infringe


After hearing the case, Gu∑σangzhou Intellectual Property Court‍γ∞ held that the litigatiπ§on focus of the case waδφs whether the accused logo c ÷onstituted a violation of the trademar♥•‌k rights for the dispute and ∞φmade the following fγ₽indings: First of all, the indicte£>d trademark and the trademark f₽ or the dispute are neither ide☆÷ntical nor similar. Starti​♥ng from the general public's attention, ​ the indications are composed o↕∏↓f two parts, the right half c™ α onsists of vertical arrangement of threγ÷e English words "ULTRAπσ✔, LIGHT, DOWN", three English words±" have clear pronunci♦₩✘∑ation and meaning, Second, from the a♦÷σ€ctual usage of the registered ₹© ‌trademark of the obl§♥₩∑igee, the Compass Company and Zh∏•ong Wei Co., Ltd. were bot≠£h registered at the time of suing for t∞♠≈he case against the trademark ↑Ωdispute In less than one y∏★§∑ear, no evidences related to theγ→≠ popularity of the trad☆"‌emark dispute have been submδ♥↕∞itted. The fast-forwarding compan×£★ ies, fast-marketing company γ'₽hundred letter Plaza store accused logo&σ↔≠ on the use of similar productsδ∑α&, but also has used theα≠ registration has long been regiβ≠stered "UNIQLO" series of trademaλ‌rks. "UNIQLO" series of trademarε↓₹ks after long-term operation has been r✘₩ecognized by the market, with high ®"≠δmarket visibility and sign♦♠ificance. Fast marketing company, fast ♥‍> marketing company 100 letter Plaza ≤&←δstore will be indicted the left parβ t of the logo and the "U★→δ±NIQLO" series of trademarks in combi₹↓∏nation with the use of goods$₽, made long-term use of th π¥→e indications obtained ×→ →by the appeal of a strong salience an<✘'€d market reputation, Will→​£ not lead to confusion §₹✘in the market, and will be $↑ subjectively found to be unfair'∑ intentions of clinging ∏>♣to the trademark dispute for ∞π♠λ"free riding". Furthermore,≤©✘ε combining the indications of indica‌<tions with the well-known ‍ "UNIQLO" trademark, consu‌∑₽‍mers are enough to identify th$φ♣↕e source of the products, and λ₹↑the relevant public will not be co∏≥nfused about the source when the δy buy the products. Or decep λ≥♥tive misleading.


Accordingly, the Guangzhou→↓↕♦ Intellectual Property Court​₽×↔ found that the reason ¶s for the appeal of Compa₩≥&↔ss Company and Zhongwei Company diα'π♣d not hold. The fast-selling ¶εcompany and fast-selling company Baix¥δ<™in Plaza did not infringe.