Squatting also went to “rights”?The results…

2022-05-29 0 By

In recent years, with the deepening of economic globalization, the division of labor in international trade and economic and trade cooperation has become increasingly complex, and the trademark infringement disputes related to export links are complex and diverse. The understanding of trademark infringement problems arising in the process of foreign-related licensing and the settlement of disputes are also changing and deepening.Recently, zhejiang High People’s Court (hereinafter referred to as Zhejiang High People’s Court) concluded a trademark infringement dispute case, once again triggered the industry on foreign-related trademark infringement of processing concerns.In the ruling of the retrial of the case, the court pointed out that the foreign-related licensing processing trade mode could not be simply fixed as the exception of trademark infringement, and the use of trademarks under such trade mode could not be considered as trademark infringement.And on the basis of determining that the alleged infringement is the processing of foreign-related trademark within the scope of legal authorization and the way of the right holder exercising the trademark right involved is unfair, the final ruling is that the alleged infringement does not constitute trademark infringement.In the above cases concluded by Zhejiang High Court, the parties are Shenzhen Times Wke Welding Technology Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Times Wke Company) and Zhejiang Laushten Technology Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Laushten Company).Why do the two enterprises have infringement disputes?The reporter learned that the two are related to a German enterprise named STAhlWERk (hereinafter referred to as German STAHLWERK Company) by referring to the civil ruling made public by Zhejiang High Court.According to the retrial ruling of the court, Mr. Balaban, the personally responsible shareholder of StaHLWERK And the managing director of staHLWERK, applied for the registration of the trademark “STAHLWERK” in Germany in April 2009, and approved the use of the trademark in the retail and wholesale services in the field of welding machines and other commodities.Balaban, as the owner of StaHLWERK Germany and the registrant of the trademark “STAHLWERK”, issued the letter of authorization, confirming that StaHLWERK Germany authorized Lausston Company to use the trademark “STAHLWERK” on welding machine products and product boxes in October 2017.Lausden is authorized by Stahlwerk to produce related products for export to Germany and sale in Germany.As the other party of the case, the affiliated enterprises of Time WIRke company had trade agency cooperation with StaHLWERK Company from 2008 to 2011, and accepted the commission of StaHLWERK company to conduct the appearance design and product processing of “STAHLWERK” brand welding machine in China.In October 2011, STAHLWERK submitted the registration application of trademark no. 10121635 “STAHLWERK” (hereinafter referred to as the trademark involved) in China, and was approved to be used in the 9th category of goods such as electric welding equipment in December 2012.In October 2019, more than 4,000 sets of “STAHLWERK” brand welding machines declared to be exported to Germany were seized by the customs.In November of the same year, the Customs informed Time WCO that it could not determine whether the goods infringed its trademark exclusive right filed in the General Administration of Customs.The company then filed a lawsuit to the court, asking the court to order The Roston company to immediately stop infringing on its trademark right and destroy the welding machine detained by the customs, compensate its economic losses and pay a total of 3.5 million yuan for the reasonable cost to stop the infringement.Lausseten company argued that the trademark involved was malicious squatting by The Times And should not be protected.At the same time, rothstein company’s use of the trademark involved is authorized by Stahlwerk, Germany, and belongs to foreign-related licensing processing. The products involved do not enter the domestic market for circulation. There is no intention to attach to the reputation of the trademark involved in The case, and the trademark used by the products involved is not the same or similar to the trademark involved.The additional product information is sufficient to enable the relevant public to distinguish the source of the product and does not constitute trademark infringement;The trademark involved is not actually used, even if the infringement is established, Lawstone company should not bear the civil liability of compensation for economic losses.After the trial, the Beilun District People’s Court of Ningbo city and the Intermediate People’s Court of Ningbo City both concluded that Roston company had performed reasonable examination or care obligations on the trademarks entrusted by overseas companies. After the trademark registered by StahlWERk Company of Germany,Therefore, it is not legally justified to claim that Lausden company, authorized by Stahlwerk Company of Germany, has infringed upon its trademark processing products.Lawston used the phrase “STAHLWERK?” on the products in question.The combination of the logo and the graphic will not cause the public to misidentify the origin of the goods, or to believe that the origin of the goods has a specific connection with TIMESwacker.In summary, the court determined that the lawsuit of Roston company did not infringe on the exclusive right to use the trademark involved, and the courts at the two levels rejected the lawsuit request of Time WCO company one after another.The company refused to accept the judgment made by the court, and then applied for a retrial to zhejiang High Court.Zhejiang province high court trial was thought that the rausch accused behavior of the company was authorized within the scope of the foreign brand processing behavior, era wei company exercise of trademark rights in the case of way contrary to the principle of good faith, rausch accused the company of behavior does not infringe the trademark involved, thus rejected the era of wei company’s application for retrial.Key points:Infringement determination and the application of the principle of good faith “foreign-related calm brand processing business involved in international trade division of labor and cooperation under the background of globalization, the analysis and judgment for whether they constitute a trademark infringement, should be well balanced domestic trademark holder, domestic processing enterprises and the foreign trademark owner or the interests of the trademark rights, in order to maintain the unity of legal system,We should strictly protect the legitimate rights and interests of trademark owners in accordance with the law, and not simply consolidate into the exception of non-infringement or infringement of trademark exclusive right, but should prevent improper expansion of protection from obstructing normal trade and competition order.”Shandong Kangqiao (Beijing) Law firm intellectual property legal affairs minister Qin Peng said that from the current judicial practice, if China’s domestic processing enterprises do not take sales as the purpose, accept the commission of overseas clients, licensed processing products are not all exported to domestic sales,Moreover, the domestic processing enterprises have fulfilled the reasonable duty of examination or care for the trademarks entrusted by overseas enterprises. Generally, the processing behavior of the domestic processing enterprises will be deemed not to constitute trademark infringement.It is worth noting that in this case, the court found that one of the elements of lawstone’s lawsuit did not constitute infringement, which was that the way of wIRco exercising trademark rights violated the principle of good faith.”The principle of good faith is the basic principle that all market participants should follow, and civil litigation activities should also follow the principle of good faith.Any act of maliciously acquiring and exercising trademark rights against the purpose and spirit of the law and for the purpose of harming the legitimate rights and interests of others is an abuse of rights, and relevant claims cannot be supported by the law.”According to Article 7 of China’s trademark law, application for registration and use of trademarks should follow the principle of good faith, Qin said.In the trial of trademark infringement cases, the value guiding role of the principle of good faith should also be reflected. Any act that violates the original intention and purpose of the trademark law and improperly exercises the trademark right should not be supported by the law.Qin peng said that if overseas enterprises or individuals violate the principle of good faith and are suspected of malicious registration of trademarks with certain influence in China, especially well-known trademarks, and entrust domestic processing enterprises to process and produce the trademarks, the behavior of overseas clients should be considered illegitimate.Domestic processing enterprises should fulfill higher duty of care and reasonable duty of avoidance, otherwise they should bear corresponding civil liability.Similarly, for the domestic trademark owner in violation of the principle of good faith, suspected of malicious registered outside the holder of the trademark, and there is evidence that the domestic processing enterprises has been entrusted to outside do need to review or reasonable duty of care, and settle the processed products are all exported, domestic trademark owner also can’t stop the domestic processing enterprises engaged in foreign-related calm brand processing business.(Wang Guohao)