On December 20, 2023, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court concluded a first-instance trademark infringement dispute between the plaintiff Liuzhou Hotel Group ("Liuzhou") and the defendants Guiyang Yunlu Hotel Management Co., Ltd. ("Guiyang Yunlu"), Fujian Yunlu Hotel Management Co., Ltd. ("Fujian Yunlu"). The court ordered the defendant Guiyang Yunlu and Fujian Yunlu to immediately stop using the "Yulu Crowne Plaza Hotel" logo. The two defendants were ordered to compensate the Liuzhou for economic losses of RMB 1 million (USD138,900) and reasonable expenses of RMB250,000 (USD34,725).
Regarding whether the alleged infringement behavior of the Guiyang Yunlu infringed on Liuzhou's trademark rights, in this case, comprehensive consideration was given to the multiple notarial certificates submitted by the Liuzhou proving that it promoted and used the cited trademarks, printouts of relevant online reports, court judgments and administrative agency rulings that Liuzhou's trademark was deemed to be relatively well-known or had reached a well-known status. In this case, it can be determined that the "Crown Plaza Hotel" mark with reg. no. 2021114 approved for use in providing accommodation services has a high reputation in China and has reached well-known status.
The "Yulu Crowne Plaza Hotel" used by Guiyang Yunlu is similar in text composition and pronunciation to Liuzhou's cited mark, which constituted an imitation and translation of Liuzhou's well-known trademark. The defendant's use of "Yulu Crowne Plaza Hotel" for the same services as Liuzhou's well-known trademark was enough to make the relevant public associate that the trademark used by the defendants was closely related to Liuzhou's well-known trademark, thus unfairly taking advantage of Liuzhou's well-known mark market reputation and harmed its interests. Therefore, the defendant's use of "Yulu Crowne Plaza Hotel" has constituted an infringement of Liuzhou's well-known trademark.
Regarding compensation for losses. The court fully considered factors such as the alleged infringing hotel's operating autonomy during the period when it was used as an quarantine hotel and the limited role of its logo as a trademark, as well as the overall situation of the hotel industry during COVID. The amount of compensation in this case should be limited to the statutory compensation amount in accordance with the law. Considering the close relationship between the first and second defendants such as shareholder relationship and trademark licensing, the two defendants in this case should bear joint and several liability.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.