NEW BALANCE Chinese Trademark Is Malicious Preemptive "New Hundred Lun" Is A Local Brand!

Founded in 1906, NEW BALANCE is world-famous.

It is called "slow".

The king.

In April 1983, the new balance company acquired the registered trademark of "N" and "NB" successively in China, and obtained the "NEW BALANCE" registered trademark in April 2003.

Subsequently, the company chose to use the Chinese name of "new hundred Lun" for publicity and marketing, and use the "new New Balance" logo.

Chinese boss: I am a Chinese trademark holder.

Chinese trademark is spiteful to be snatch

Case review: NEW BALANCE was infringed in the first instance.

Zhou Lelun, the boss of Guangdong shoe enterprises, is the exclusive right holder of the "new Bai Lun" registered trademark. He pferred from the other hands to the "hundred Lun" trademark in April 2004, and applied for registration of "new hundred Lun" trademark in June of the same year, and was registered in January 2008.

Later, on the grounds that Zhou Lelun and his new trademark were infringed upon by the Shengli company and the new Bai Lun company, they requested the court to order the two defendants: stop the infringement immediately, and demand compensation for the economic losses of 300 thousand yuan and 98 million yuan respectively, and assume 670990 yuan of reasonable expenses for stopping the invasion.

The Guangzhou intermediate people's court made a first instance judgment in April 29, 2015, ordered the new hundred Lun company to stop immediately infringing on Zhou Lelun's trademark right, and compensated Zhou Lelun for 98 million yuan (including reasonable expenses).

The new hundred Lun company appealed against the first instance judgment to the Guangdong high court.

In April 24, 2015, the Guangzhou intermediate people's court made a first instance judgment on the trademark dispute.

The hospital believes that the new New Balance company in China, the new BL trade (China) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "new bun company"), because of the use of the registered trademark "new hundred Lun" of Zhou Lelun, the boss of Guangdong shoe enterprises, constitutes a violation of the exclusive right of other people's trademark, and it must compensate Zhou Lelun for 98 million yuan. The judgment has refreshed the record of the infringement compensation record of the court.

New Bai Lun company refused to accept the appeal.

Yesterday morning, the appeal case of the new trademark dispute was held at the higher people's Court of Guangdong province.

In the court, the appellant and the appellant carried out the debate: is the appellant Zhou Lelun's trademark "Bai Lun" and "Xin Bai Lun" actually used and has a certain reputation? Does the appellant New Blance enjoy the title of the enterprise name, the trademark right of the enterprise name, and the right to name the well-known commodity? Does Zhou Lelun, the appellant, maliciously rush to register the "new hundred Lun" trademark? Does the appellant New Blance publicize the use of the "new hundred Lun" trademark on the relevant certificates and official website of the product, does it infringe upon the trademark exclusive right of the appellant Zhou Lelun? Does the illegal amount recognized by the court of first instance have sufficient facts and legal basis?

Xin Bai Lun believes that New Balance has thirty-fifth types of registered trademarks of "new hundred Lun" on services such as "promotion (for others)" and so on. The company uses "New Balance/ new hundred Lun", "NB/ new Bai Lun" or "New Balance Xin Bo Lun and NB map" logo, and it will not be confused with Zhou Lelun's "Bai Lun" trademark. Moreover, the new Bai Lun company enjoys the prior name of the well-known commodity in the name of "new hundred Lun" and so on, which belongs to the reasonable use of its prior name right.

New balun company also believes that when there is no subjective malice, it is wrong to apply the law to calculate the amount of compensation directly by the new company.

Zhou Lelun also believes that there is a malicious rush to register trademark.

The appellant considers that the trademark "Bai Lun" and "Xin Bai Lun" are protected by law in accordance with the law.

The use of "new hundred Lun" by new Bai Lun company constitutes trademark use. According to the trademark law, it constitutes a violation of the registered trademarks of Zhou's "Bai Lun" and "Xin Bai Lun".

The appeal request of new Bai Lun company should be rejected according to law.