North Face Apparel Corp., USA v. Beijing Silk Market Co., Ltd.
File No. C080516
Case Name: The North Face Apparel Corp., USA v. Beijing Silk Market Co., Ltd.
Filing Date: December 24, 2007 (by the appeal court)
Plaintiff: The North Face Apparel Corp., USA (North Face)
Defendant: Beijing Silk Market Co., Ltd. (Silk Market)
Appellant: Beijing Silk Market Co., Ltd. (Silk Market)
Appellee: The North Face Apparel Corp., USA (North Face)
Cause(s) of Action: Trademark infringement
Remedy Requested: Revoke the trial court’s ruling and reject North Face’s litigation requests.
Trial Court: PRC Beijing Second 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. The trial court ordered the Silk Market to: (i) stop infringing on the plaintiff’s exclusive rights to use its registered trademark; (ii) make a public announcement of the infringing act in Silk Market to eliminate adverse influence; (iii) pay damages for economic losses in the amount of RMB 20,000 and appropriate legal costs in the amount of RMB 19,000. The appeal court subsequently affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
Decision Date: March 20, 2008
Summary: The plaintiff (North Face) charged the defendant (Silk Market) with infringing on its exclusive rights to use its registered trademark “The North Face” and its logo by selling garments bearing the said trademark and logo. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The appeal court subsequently affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
The trial court confirmed that the allegedly infringing garments used a trademark that is identical with the plaintiff’s registered trademark in respect of identical or similar goods, and therefore, infringed on the plaintiff’s exclusive rights to use the said trademark. The trial court held that, as the manager of the marketplace, Silk Market did not fulfill its duty of overseeing the origin and trademark rights of the merchandise sold by its tenant vendors and indulged the infringing acts of the vendors. Based on PRC Trademark Law Article 52 (1), (2), (5), 56; Implementing Regulations of the PRC Trademark Law Article 50 (2); General Principles of the PRC Civil Law Article 134 (1), (7), (9), the trial court ordered Silk Market to bear relevant civil liability.
The appeal court confirmed that the garments the appellee (North Face) purchased from the vendors in Silk Market were infringing products. The appeal court rejected the appellant’s (Silk Market) claim that the concerned vendors sold the infringing products covertly and it was impossible for the landlord to control the vendors’ actions to prevent infringement, by pointing out that in accordance with the contract between the landlord and the tenant vendors, the vendors were forbidden to issue warranty cards for any infringing merchandise sold covertly, while North Face purchased garments that infringed on its trademark rights from vendors who issued warranty cards several times both before and after it had notified Silk Market with a cease-and-desist letter. As Silk Market did not evict the concerned vendors as requested by relevant regulations concerning frequent offenders but only gave warning, the appeal court rejected Silk Market’s claim that it fulfilled its supervisory duty. Based on available evidence, the appeal court held that Silk Market committed trademark infringement by intentionally indulging and facilitating the vendors’ infringing acts. Based on PRC Civil Procedure Law Article 153 (1), the appeal court confirmed the trial court’s ruling and rejected the appellant’s appeal.
Copyright 2008, InterLingua.com, Inc.
Case Name: The North Face Apparel Corp., USA v. Beijing Silk Market Co., Ltd.
Filing Date: December 24, 2007 (by the appeal court)
Plaintiff: The North Face Apparel Corp., USA (North Face)
Defendant: Beijing Silk Market Co., Ltd. (Silk Market)
Appellant: Beijing Silk Market Co., Ltd. (Silk Market)
Appellee: The North Face Apparel Corp., USA (North Face)
Cause(s) of Action: Trademark infringement
Remedy Requested: Revoke the trial court’s ruling and reject North Face’s litigation requests.
Trial Court: PRC Beijing Second 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. The trial court ordered the Silk Market to: (i) stop infringing on the plaintiff’s exclusive rights to use its registered trademark; (ii) make a public announcement of the infringing act in Silk Market to eliminate adverse influence; (iii) pay damages for economic losses in the amount of RMB 20,000 and appropriate legal costs in the amount of RMB 19,000. The appeal court subsequently affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
Decision Date: March 20, 2008
Summary: The plaintiff (North Face) charged the defendant (Silk Market) with infringing on its exclusive rights to use its registered trademark “The North Face” and its logo by selling garments bearing the said trademark and logo. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The appeal court subsequently affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
The trial court confirmed that the allegedly infringing garments used a trademark that is identical with the plaintiff’s registered trademark in respect of identical or similar goods, and therefore, infringed on the plaintiff’s exclusive rights to use the said trademark. The trial court held that, as the manager of the marketplace, Silk Market did not fulfill its duty of overseeing the origin and trademark rights of the merchandise sold by its tenant vendors and indulged the infringing acts of the vendors. Based on PRC Trademark Law Article 52 (1), (2), (5), 56; Implementing Regulations of the PRC Trademark Law Article 50 (2); General Principles of the PRC Civil Law Article 134 (1), (7), (9), the trial court ordered Silk Market to bear relevant civil liability.
The appeal court confirmed that the garments the appellee (North Face) purchased from the vendors in Silk Market were infringing products. The appeal court rejected the appellant’s (Silk Market) claim that the concerned vendors sold the infringing products covertly and it was impossible for the landlord to control the vendors’ actions to prevent infringement, by pointing out that in accordance with the contract between the landlord and the tenant vendors, the vendors were forbidden to issue warranty cards for any infringing merchandise sold covertly, while North Face purchased garments that infringed on its trademark rights from vendors who issued warranty cards several times both before and after it had notified Silk Market with a cease-and-desist letter. As Silk Market did not evict the concerned vendors as requested by relevant regulations concerning frequent offenders but only gave warning, the appeal court rejected Silk Market’s claim that it fulfilled its supervisory duty. Based on available evidence, the appeal court held that Silk Market committed trademark infringement by intentionally indulging and facilitating the vendors’ infringing acts. Based on PRC Civil Procedure Law Article 153 (1), the appeal court confirmed the trial court’s ruling and rejected the appellant’s appeal.
Copyright 2008, InterLingua.com, Inc.
Comments