Recently, the Ningbo Yinzhou District Court concluded a trademark infringement and anti-unfair competition dispute between MTG Co., Ltd. ("MTG"), a Zhejiang electrical appliance company, a Ningbo electrical appliance company, a Ningbo holding company, a Ningbo network technology company, and a Ningbo electronic technology company ("defendants"). The court found that the defendants' actions constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition. The infringement of the plaintiff's exclusive rights to registered trademarks with reg. nos. G1149527, 36415538, and 47113710 should be immediately stopped, and the defendants should jointly and severally compensate the plaintiff for economic losses and reasonable expenses incurred to stop the infringement, totaling RMB650,000 (USD 89,693).
Cited Marks
The court found that: First, the defendants used the "Refa in Chinese", "refa" and "Refa" logos on the product name of its hair dryer products, product details page, store home page promotion picture, top and bottom of the home page, and on the packaging box and handbag. The "Refa in Chinese" logo is used in the manual, fuselage, etc., which is a trademark use. The "Refa in Chinese" logo is the same as MTG's trademark, and the goods used constitute identical goods. Such uses infringed MTG's trademark right. The "refa" and "Refa" logos have the same English composition as MTG's Cited Mark. The only differences are letter size and composition, which are enough to cause confusion and misunderstanding among the relevant public about the source of the goods. These marks constitute similar. The defendants' production and sale of the product infringes MTG's trademark right.
Second, the defendants used the word "ReFa" in the product names and brand marks of the two products, and the "ReFa" logo on the display box, manual, charging cable packaging paper, body, etc. The sonic facial cleansing product constitutes identical goods with the approved goods of MTG's prior mark with reg. no. G1149527. The rotating facial cleansing product constitutes similar goods to the approved goods in terms of functional use, consumer objects, etc. The "ReFa" logo is identical with MTG's Cited Mark. "ReFa" shares identical letters and composition with the Cited Mark. The only differences are the letter size and composition, which are enough to cause confusion and misunderstanding among the relevant public about the source of the goods. The marks constitute similar. Therefore, the use of the said logo, production and selling of the accused infringing products infringed upon MTG's trademark right.
Third, MTG's cited mark with reg. no. G1149527 applied for extension of protection in China on March 2, 2013. In 2013, MTG started promoting the ReFa brand and selling products. Both "ReFa in Chinese" and "ReFa" have high originality. The defendants first began to file for "REFA" and "Refa in Chinese" marks in August 2014, and began to file a large number of these marks in 2017. When the defendants applied for the "REFA" and "Refa in Chinese" marks after the MTG's products entered the Chinese market and when MTG's brand had a certain fame and influence in China's household beauty equipment industry. Such marks were highly similar to the Cited Marks in terms of Chinese and English composition, and the defendants also failed to provide a reasonable explanation for its intention to register these marks and the source of the design creation. It can be concluded that the defendants had the intention to imitate MTG's Cited Marks. Judging from the classes and quantity of the marks filed by the defendants, the numbers were obviously beyond the needs of normal business operations. It can be concluded that the defendant has the intention to hoard trademarks and engage in unfair competition with the goodwill of MTG's brand. The said defendants' actions of constituted unfair competition.
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.
