KVC Co., Ltd., Japan v. Shanghai KVC Valve Co., Ltd.
File No. C080543
Case Name: KVC Co., Ltd., Japan v. Shanghai KVC Valve Co., Ltd.
Filing Date: N/A
Plaintiff: KVC Co., Ltd., Japan (KVC Japan)
Defendant: Shanghai KVC Valve Co., Ltd. (Shanghai KVC)
Appellant: KVC Co., Ltd., Japan (KVC Japan)
Appellee: Shanghai KVC Valve Co., Ltd. (Shanghai KVC)
Cause(s) of Action: Trademark infringement
Remedy Requested: Revoke the trial court’s decision, and make just ruling, including (i) recognizing the appellee’s infringing act of using acronyms “SHKVC” and “SKVC”; (ii) paying damages for economic losses in the amount of RMB 500,000.
Trial Court: PRC Shanghai First Intermediate People’s Court
Appeal Court: PRC Shanghai People’s High Court
Disposition: The trial court ruled partially in favor of the plaintiff with regard to the charge of trademark infringement. The trial court ordered the defendant to (i) stop infringing on the plaintiff’s exclusive rights to use its registered trademark “KVC”; (ii) pay damages for economic losses in the amount of RMB 20,000. The appeal court subsequently corrected the trial court’s mistake in judging that the use of “SHKVC” and “SKVC” did not constitute trademark infringement, but affirmed the trial court’s other judgments.
Decision Date: February 27, 2008
Summary: The plaintiff (KVC, Japan) charged the defendant (Shanghai KVC) with infringing on its exclusive rights to use the registered trademark “KVC” by using the English company name “Shanghai KVC Valve Co., Ltd.” and its acronyms “SHKVC” and “SKVC” on the company’s web site and using the name “Shanghai KVC” to promote itself at trade fairs and “SHKVC” as its products’ mark. The trial court ruled partially in favor of the plaintiff. The appeal court subsequently corrected the trial court’s mistake.
During the course of the proceedings, the trial court established that the defendant formed a joint venture with a company from Singapore and had the English name “Shanghai Liang Gong KVC Valve Co., Ltd.”. However, the company from Singapore later transferred its shares to the defendant and in the Share Transfer Agreement it was stated that the defendant was not to use the trademark KVC in any form. The trial court held that the defendant’s continued use of KVC in its company’s English name and its use of the English name to promote itself misled the public to confuse the defendant with the plaintiff; and this act constituted trademark infringement. However, the trial court deemed that the defendant’s use of the acronyms “SHKVC” and “SKVC” did not infringed on the plaintiff’s trademark rights as these names/marks projected a different visual effect and showed much difference in pronunciations from the plaintiff’s registered trademark “KVC”. The trial court based the amount of damages awarded on factors such as the nature, the seriousness, and the consequences of the infringing act.
The appeal court held that KVC is the prominent part of the appellant’s (KVC, Japan) registered trademark and design and in comparing the said trademark with the acronyms the appellee (Shanghai KVC) used, even though there were differences, the similarity in the prominent part was enough to mislead the consumers to believe that the appellee was an affiliated company of the appellant in Shanghai. The appeal court held that the appellee’s use of the said acronyms also infringed on the appellant’s trademark rights and corrected the trial court’s misjudgment thereof. However, the appeal court affirmed the amount of damages the trial court awarded due to the appellant’s failure in submitting evidence concerning the scale, the consequences, the duration of the infringing act; the price and quantity of the infringing products; and the appropriate fees paid by the right holder to stop the infringing act despite the appellant’s claim that the infringing act was serious and malicious, its trademark highly well-known, and the trademark licensing fee should be taken into consideration in deciding the amount of damages.
Copyright 2008, InterLingua.com, Inc.
Case Name: KVC Co., Ltd., Japan v. Shanghai KVC Valve Co., Ltd.
Filing Date: N/A
Plaintiff: KVC Co., Ltd., Japan (KVC Japan)
Defendant: Shanghai KVC Valve Co., Ltd. (Shanghai KVC)
Appellant: KVC Co., Ltd., Japan (KVC Japan)
Appellee: Shanghai KVC Valve Co., Ltd. (Shanghai KVC)
Cause(s) of Action: Trademark infringement
Remedy Requested: Revoke the trial court’s decision, and make just ruling, including (i) recognizing the appellee’s infringing act of using acronyms “SHKVC” and “SKVC”; (ii) paying damages for economic losses in the amount of RMB 500,000.
Trial Court: PRC Shanghai First Intermediate People’s Court
Appeal Court: PRC Shanghai People’s High Court
Disposition: The trial court ruled partially in favor of the plaintiff with regard to the charge of trademark infringement. The trial court ordered the defendant to (i) stop infringing on the plaintiff’s exclusive rights to use its registered trademark “KVC”; (ii) pay damages for economic losses in the amount of RMB 20,000. The appeal court subsequently corrected the trial court’s mistake in judging that the use of “SHKVC” and “SKVC” did not constitute trademark infringement, but affirmed the trial court’s other judgments.
Decision Date: February 27, 2008
Summary: The plaintiff (KVC, Japan) charged the defendant (Shanghai KVC) with infringing on its exclusive rights to use the registered trademark “KVC” by using the English company name “Shanghai KVC Valve Co., Ltd.” and its acronyms “SHKVC” and “SKVC” on the company’s web site and using the name “Shanghai KVC” to promote itself at trade fairs and “SHKVC” as its products’ mark. The trial court ruled partially in favor of the plaintiff. The appeal court subsequently corrected the trial court’s mistake.
During the course of the proceedings, the trial court established that the defendant formed a joint venture with a company from Singapore and had the English name “Shanghai Liang Gong KVC Valve Co., Ltd.”. However, the company from Singapore later transferred its shares to the defendant and in the Share Transfer Agreement it was stated that the defendant was not to use the trademark KVC in any form. The trial court held that the defendant’s continued use of KVC in its company’s English name and its use of the English name to promote itself misled the public to confuse the defendant with the plaintiff; and this act constituted trademark infringement. However, the trial court deemed that the defendant’s use of the acronyms “SHKVC” and “SKVC” did not infringed on the plaintiff’s trademark rights as these names/marks projected a different visual effect and showed much difference in pronunciations from the plaintiff’s registered trademark “KVC”. The trial court based the amount of damages awarded on factors such as the nature, the seriousness, and the consequences of the infringing act.
The appeal court held that KVC is the prominent part of the appellant’s (KVC, Japan) registered trademark and design and in comparing the said trademark with the acronyms the appellee (Shanghai KVC) used, even though there were differences, the similarity in the prominent part was enough to mislead the consumers to believe that the appellee was an affiliated company of the appellant in Shanghai. The appeal court held that the appellee’s use of the said acronyms also infringed on the appellant’s trademark rights and corrected the trial court’s misjudgment thereof. However, the appeal court affirmed the amount of damages the trial court awarded due to the appellant’s failure in submitting evidence concerning the scale, the consequences, the duration of the infringing act; the price and quantity of the infringing products; and the appropriate fees paid by the right holder to stop the infringing act despite the appellant’s claim that the infringing act was serious and malicious, its trademark highly well-known, and the trademark licensing fee should be taken into consideration in deciding the amount of damages.
Copyright 2008, InterLingua.com, Inc.
Comments