Vapor
New Balance has prevailed in a trademark case that is part of a
larger and long-running legal battle that has pitted it against New
Barlun, a Chinese sportswear company that has been trading on its name
and various trademarks for more than 15 years. In a decision dated
January 5, the Shanghai Huangpu District Court ordered New Barlun Co.
Ltd and Shanghai Shiyi Trade Co. Ltd to pay damages of RMB 25 million
($3.85 million) to New Balance, in one of the largest judgments awarded
to a trademark holder in the sportswear market in China to date.
The
Shanghai Huangpu District Court held that New Barlun and Shiyi’s
practice of manufacturing and distributing sneakers bearing a capital
“N” symbol that is noticeably similar to the “N” that appears on the
side of New Balance’s trainers constitutes trademark infringement, with
the court noting that the similarity between the two parties’ marks is
similar in both a “visual and conceptual” capacity.
Siding with
New Balance, the court found that New Barlun’s lookalike sneakers
generated substantial revenues for the company, which is viewed as one
of the “most prolific and aggressive copycat brands” in the Chinese
sportswear space, and that such success was largely attributable to the
fame and reputation of the New Balance brand and its “N” trademark in
China. The court also revealed that the defendants had acted in bad
faith when they continued to operate even after the court had issued an
interim injunction order barring them from manufacturing and selling the
infringing footwear for the duration of the case.
In addition to
coming down on New Barlun and Shiyi, the court held that distributor
Shanghai Lusha is also held jointly liable for the infringement, and on
the hook for RMB 100,000 ($15,000) as a result of its role in the
infringement scheme.
Reflecting on the court’s decision, Dan
Mckinnon, senior counsel of intellectual property and global brand
protection at New Balance, said in a statement, “It is very encouraging
that the Court has once again recognized the legitimacy of New Balance’s
intellectual property rights which will help ensure that our brand is
safeguarded and protect our consumers’ interests.”
At the same
time, Carol Wang, who is the Principal and Head of Shanghai Litigation
Group at Rouse, noted that the decision “is not only a win for New
Balance but for a wide range of international brands operating in China,
as they continue to face the increasing threat of copycats on their
business.” She noted that the decision “further demonstrates China’s
commitment to establishing a sophisticated and robust IP system that
matches other leading countries, [which] will be crucial in attracting
international investment.”
New Balance’s win – which is subject
to appeal – comes after the sportswear company prevailed in a separate
unfair competition case against New Barlun last year, in which it argued
that as a result of repeated and consistent use of its “N” trademark on
the sides of its shoes since 2001, it has amassed trade tress rights in
the particular placement of the logo.
Last spring, Shanghai
Pudong People’s Court (“PPC”) held that New Balance’s trade dress rights
and its trademark rights are separate types of intellectual property
with different scopes and durations of protection. As such, regardless
of whether New Barlun had obtained a registration for the “N” trademark
(and it had), its use of the mark in a specific format/placement on its
shoes, which mirrors that of New Balance, gives rise to separate – and
merited – claims of trade dress infringement/unfair competition by the
American footwear company.
The PPC’s April 2020 decision – which
brought an end to New Balance’s 16-year battle against the copycat brand
that had enjoyed significant success by imitating New Balance’s
stylized “N” logo – followed from years of losses for New Balance in the
form of opposition and invalidation proceedings against the
registration of the “N” mark by New Barlun. As it turns out, New Barlun
successfully obtained a trademark registration for a lookalike mark long
before New Balance, highlighting one of the more common tactics
employed by trademark infringing parties: the registration and use of
marks that are almost identical to foreign brands’ marks with a slight
modification in order to avoid facing any objection during the
registration process.
Source:www.thefashionlaw.com
Editor:IPRdaily-Vapor