Louis Vuitton Malletier, France v. WANG Jun
File No. C080514
Case Name: Louis Vuitton Malletier, France v. WANG Jun
Filing Date: February 13, 2008
Plaintiff: Louis Vuitton Malletier, France (Louis Vuitton)
Defendant: WANG Jun
Appellant: WANG Jun
Appellee: Louis Vuitton Malletier, France (Louis Vuitton)
Cause(s) of Action: Trademark infringement
Remedy Requested: By the plaintiff: forbid WANG Jun to use his design patented shopping bag products. By the appellant: revoke the trial court’s ruling and reject Louis Vuitton’s litigation requests.
Trial Court: PRC Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court
Appeal Court: PRC Beijing People’s High Court
Disposition: The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff with regard to the charge of trademark infringement and ordered the defendant not to use the products with the patented design. The appeal court subsequently affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
Decision Date: April 03, 2008
Summary: The plaintiff (Louis Vuitton) charged the defendant (WANG Jun) with infringing on its trademark rights by plagiarizing its registered trademarks and applying the plagiarized patterns on shopping bags to apply for a design patent that was granted. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The appeal court subsequently affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
The trial court confirmed that WANG Jun’s patented design is composed of prominent patterns identical or similar to Louis Vuitton’s four registered trademarks. The trial court judged that WANG Jun’s patented design collided with Louis Vuitton’s legal prior rights as Louis Vuitton’s four concerned trademarks were registered before WANG Jun applied for his design patent, and WANG Jun’s products that the patented design was to use on were similar to Louis Vuitton’s. The trial court further decided that WANG Jun’s registration of the said design patent caused prejudice to the exclusive right of Louis Vuitton to use its registered trademarks. Based on PRC Patent Law Article 23, Implementing Regulations of PRC Patent Law Article 65 iii, and PRC Trademark Law Article 52 (5), the trial court ordered WANG Jun not to use the products with his patented design in order not to infringe on Louis Vuitton’s trademark rights.
The appeal court dismissed WANG Jun’s challenge of the trial court’s right in judging the dispute, who regarded that an administrative procedure should come first. The appeal court pointed out that the trial court’s judgment is the premise for the administrative department to make its invalidation decision, and the trial court has the right to judge whenever a conflict is present, citing as support Implementing regulations of PRC Patent Law Article 65 iii, which states that where a request for invalidation of a patent for design is based on the ground that the patent for design is in conflict with a prior right of another person, but no effective ruling or judgment is submitted to prove such conflict of rights , the Patent Reexamination Board shall not accept it. The appeal court further confirmed that WANG Jun’s products were similar to Louis Vuitton’s in spite of WANG Jun’s objection, stating that the International Classification of Goods and Services, which was to facilitate the registration of marks and administrative management, was not the only criterion to judge if two products were similar. Although there was no evidence that WANG Jun’s products were put on the market, the appeal court affirmed that the trial court’s ruling was a proper measure to forestall a potential injury on Louis Vuitton. The appeal court further stated that relevant judicial interpretations by the Supreme People’s Court did not give a finite list of the acts that cause prejudice to the exclusive right of another person to use a registered trademark, rejecting WANG Jun’s claim that his act was not described in the interpretations and did not cause such prejudice. The appeal court also decided, concerning WANG Jun’s complaint that the trial court did not notify him of the change in the collegial panel members, that even if the trial court were negligent in this respect, it did not change the fact that the trial court gave the correct ruling. Based on PRC Civil Procedure Law Article 153 (1), the appeal court supported the trial court’s ruling and rejected WANG Jun’s appeal.
Copyright 2008, InterLingua.com, Inc.
Case Name: Louis Vuitton Malletier, France v. WANG Jun
Filing Date: February 13, 2008
Plaintiff: Louis Vuitton Malletier, France (Louis Vuitton)
Defendant: WANG Jun
Appellant: WANG Jun
Appellee: Louis Vuitton Malletier, France (Louis Vuitton)
Cause(s) of Action: Trademark infringement
Remedy Requested: By the plaintiff: forbid WANG Jun to use his design patented shopping bag products. By the appellant: revoke the trial court’s ruling and reject Louis Vuitton’s litigation requests.
Trial Court: PRC Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court
Appeal Court: PRC Beijing People’s High Court
Disposition: The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff with regard to the charge of trademark infringement and ordered the defendant not to use the products with the patented design. The appeal court subsequently affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
Decision Date: April 03, 2008
Summary: The plaintiff (Louis Vuitton) charged the defendant (WANG Jun) with infringing on its trademark rights by plagiarizing its registered trademarks and applying the plagiarized patterns on shopping bags to apply for a design patent that was granted. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The appeal court subsequently affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
The trial court confirmed that WANG Jun’s patented design is composed of prominent patterns identical or similar to Louis Vuitton’s four registered trademarks. The trial court judged that WANG Jun’s patented design collided with Louis Vuitton’s legal prior rights as Louis Vuitton’s four concerned trademarks were registered before WANG Jun applied for his design patent, and WANG Jun’s products that the patented design was to use on were similar to Louis Vuitton’s. The trial court further decided that WANG Jun’s registration of the said design patent caused prejudice to the exclusive right of Louis Vuitton to use its registered trademarks. Based on PRC Patent Law Article 23, Implementing Regulations of PRC Patent Law Article 65 iii, and PRC Trademark Law Article 52 (5), the trial court ordered WANG Jun not to use the products with his patented design in order not to infringe on Louis Vuitton’s trademark rights.
The appeal court dismissed WANG Jun’s challenge of the trial court’s right in judging the dispute, who regarded that an administrative procedure should come first. The appeal court pointed out that the trial court’s judgment is the premise for the administrative department to make its invalidation decision, and the trial court has the right to judge whenever a conflict is present, citing as support Implementing regulations of PRC Patent Law Article 65 iii, which states that where a request for invalidation of a patent for design is based on the ground that the patent for design is in conflict with a prior right of another person, but no effective ruling or judgment is submitted to prove such conflict of rights , the Patent Reexamination Board shall not accept it. The appeal court further confirmed that WANG Jun’s products were similar to Louis Vuitton’s in spite of WANG Jun’s objection, stating that the International Classification of Goods and Services, which was to facilitate the registration of marks and administrative management, was not the only criterion to judge if two products were similar. Although there was no evidence that WANG Jun’s products were put on the market, the appeal court affirmed that the trial court’s ruling was a proper measure to forestall a potential injury on Louis Vuitton. The appeal court further stated that relevant judicial interpretations by the Supreme People’s Court did not give a finite list of the acts that cause prejudice to the exclusive right of another person to use a registered trademark, rejecting WANG Jun’s claim that his act was not described in the interpretations and did not cause such prejudice. The appeal court also decided, concerning WANG Jun’s complaint that the trial court did not notify him of the change in the collegial panel members, that even if the trial court were negligent in this respect, it did not change the fact that the trial court gave the correct ruling. Based on PRC Civil Procedure Law Article 153 (1), the appeal court supported the trial court’s ruling and rejected WANG Jun’s appeal.
Copyright 2008, InterLingua.com, Inc.
Comments