牛仔裤品牌Levi’s“双弧线”商标引纠纷Levi's Unable to Establish Similarity between Its "Double Arc" and Local TM

2018-08-13 shenlantm 54

Guangdong High People's Court made a second-instance judgment on the trademark infringement appeal case filed by Levi’s Company against Guangdong Wenshite Garment Industry Co., Ltd., holding that a series of trademarks such as WENSHITE owned by Wenshite did not infringe the exclusive right of Levi's “double arc” registered trademark. Guangdong High rejected the appeal from Levi's and upheld the first-instance decision by Shanwei Intermediate People's Court of Guangdong Province.

近日,广东省高级人民法院(下称广东高院)就利惠公司(下称Levi’s公司)起诉广东文时特制衣实业有限公司(下称文时特公司)商标侵权上诉案作出二审判决,认定文时特公司持有的文时特等系列商标未侵犯Levi’s公司的双弧线注册商标专用权,驳回其上诉,维持广东省汕尾市中级人民法院(下称汕尾中院)作出的一审判决。


According to the complaint, Levi's company owned  Levi's trademark, double horses trademark and double arc trademark, and applied for the double arc trademark in China, which was certified to be used on goods including clothing, jeans, shirts, jackets, children's wear, etc. Wenshite Company launched a series of products,and the arc design and logo used on the trouser pocket of Wenshite’s jeans were very similar to the “double arc” trademark of Levi's company. In the meantime, Wenshite also used the label design on the right side of the trouser pocket which was similar to the trademark registered by Levi's. The act could be deemed as malicious free-riding on Levi's's reputation and was suspected of infringing Levi's exclusive rights of the trademark in question. Accordingly, Levi's sued Wenshite at Shanwei Intermediate Court and requested the court to order Wenshite to cease the infringement and indemnify 500,000 yuan in damages. 

Levi’s公司诉称,Levi’s公司持有Levi’s商标、双马图商标和双弧线商标,并在中国申请注册了双弧线商标,核准商品包括服装、牛仔裤、衬衫、夹克、童装等。文时特公司推出牛仔裤的裤袋上所使用弧线等设计、标识与Levi’s公司的双弧线商标非常类似;同时,文时特公司还在裤袋右侧缝线上使用标签设计,与Levi’s公司注册的裤袋商标非常相似,属恶意攀附Levi’s公司的知名度,涉嫌侵犯Levi’s公司对涉案商标享有的注册商标专用权。据此,Levi’s公司请求法院判令文时特公司停止侵权行为,并赔偿经济损失50万元。


Wenshite argued that each jeans product sold by it had its own registered trademark, which was WENSHITE in words and figure. Double arc was a universal design expression. The double curved surface of Wenshite's jeans pocket was just a pocket decoration and had no obvious features that would enable consumers to mistakenly believe the products were from Levi's. Therefore, no infringement was constituted.

文时特公司辩称,文时特公司每条牛仔裤商品上的双弧线有极为广泛的通用性,牛仔裤口袋中的双曲面只是口袋的装饰,没有存在让消费者误认为是Levi’s公司产品的明显特征,不存在侵权行为。


After hearing, Shanwei Intermediate Court held that there were differences in the combination elements, composition, and overall structure of the trademark logos of the two parties. Therefore, the two marks did not constitute similar ones. Although the Levi's trademark and double horses trademark of Levi's were better known than Wenshite's, the evidence furnished by Levi's was not sufficient to prove that the double arc trademark had a very high reputation. The logo W on the jeans pockets of Wenshite Company was the use and deductive use of the pattern W in its registered trademark WENSHITE. The self-owned trademark WENSHITE were also prominently used on the jeans, fairly different from the trademark logo of Levi's. The trademark logos on Wenshite's products and the registered trademark of Levi's would not cause confusion among the relevant public and would not infringe the exclusive right of registered trademark of Levi’s. Accordingly, the court rejected Levi's claim.

汕尾中院经审理认为,就双方商标标识的组合要素、构图、组合后的整体结构看,均存在不同,故两者不构成近似,且Levi’s商标和双马图商标更为熟知,而Levi’s公司提供的证据不足以证明双弧线商标具有非常高的知名度。而文时特公司牛仔裤后裤袋上的标识是其注册商标WENSHITE中图案W的使用及演绎使用,文时特公司牛仔裤上还显著使用了与Levi’s公司商标标识完全不同的自有商标WENSHITE。因此,不会造成相关公众的混淆,不侵犯Levi’s公司注册商标专用权。据此,法院驳回Levi’s公司的诉讼请求。


Disgruntled with the first-instance judgement, Levi's then went on appeal to Guangdong High. The superior court upheld the first-instance decision of the trial court and revoked the appeal from Levi's on the ground that the alleged infringed trademark logo was not similar to the trademark in question and would not likely cause confusion among the relevant public. 

一审判决后,Levi’s公司不服,向广东高院提起上诉。广东高院以被诉侵权标识与涉案商标不构成相近似也不容易导致相关公众混淆等为由,驳回其上诉,维持了一审判决。


(by Jiang Xu/Chen Zhaomin)

(中国知识产权报,记者姜旭,通讯员陈朝敏,2018年07月25日)


上海商标注册.png上海商标注册,上海深蓝商标代理有限公司,021-53018613,service@shenlantm.com,China Trademark Registration,http://www.shenlantm.com;http://www.shenlanipr.com