Chanel Recently Lost A Lawsuit In China's "Double C" Trademark Rights Protection Case

Recently, Chanel lost a lawsuit in the "double C" trademark protection case in China.

The Guangzhou intellectual property court revoked the trial verdict in the two adjudication judgment. It was held that Chanel did not have sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant was guilty of infringement or fraud by Chanel's "double C" trademark.

According to the Guangzhou intellectual property court, "there is not enough evidence that the store's products are sold as trademarks when they sell the goods involved." In addition, the court found that there was no evidence in any case that ye Mou misled consumers in any way about the source of the product. There was no evidence that ordinary consumers with general cognitive level would think they were buying Chanel products.

The infringement case began in 2016. In June of that year, Guangzhou's Haizhuqu District Bureau of industry and commerce, after being anonymous, broke out to inspect jewelry stores operated by Ye Mou Zong and found a number of suspected infringing goods. The jewelry store is a franchise of Zhou Bai Fu, a brand of Zhou Bai Fu Jewelry International Group Co., Ltd., Hongkong. Ye started to run the jewelry store in 2014.

The suspected infringing jewellery found by the former Haizhuqu District Bureau of industry and Commerce contained the shape of Chanel's "double C". It was identified by Chanel agents on the spot that it constituted a violation of Chanel's exclusive right to use registered trademarks. The original Haizhuqu District industry and Commerce Bureau immediately decided to investigate the case. In September 30th of the same year, the government department made administrative penalties. He believed that ye was a trademark infringement and ordered him to compensate Chanel 80 thousand yuan and confiscate the goods involved.

A few months later, Chanel, on the grounds of trademark infringement and fraud, took Ye Mou to court, requesting the court to order Ye's compensation for Chanel's economic loss of 100 thousand yuan. Although Ye argued that its jewelry store was only a "Zhou Bai Fu" franchise, all the goods sold were sent to Zhou Baifu's brand label after passing the inspection, and the related products had gone through the same procedure before the sale. Ye believes that he should not be listed as a defendant. In addition, the products involved in Ye Mou store were not sold, and did not cause Chanel losses.

However, in the first instance, the Zhuhai court found that the "double C" icon was used without authorization to infringe Chanel's exclusive right to use registered trademarks. Taking into account the factors such as the degree of damage, the form of operation, the scope of operation, the scale of operation, the infringement, the area of infringement and the value of the infringing goods, we should make sure that Chanel has compensated Chanel for 60 thousand yuan.

　　 For the outcome of the first instance, he expressed his disapproval and then appealed to the intellectual property court of Guangzhou. In his appeal, ye believes that the procedure of Chanel's agent's identification of the goods involved is infringing goods without credibility. At the same time, ye asked, "can we rely solely on the shape of the product to determine the infringement?" that is to say, should the "double C" shape of the jewellery be regarded as a trademark or as an ornamental function? If a double C trademark is identified, is it possible for consumers to be confused about the source of the product?

In response to the question of Ye Mou, the Guangzhou intellectual property court first held that "Chanel did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that when the shops operated by Ye Mou Zong were selling the goods involved, there was a case of using the product as a trademark, similar to Chanel's registered trademark, attracting customers and selling goods. "Therefore, the court revoked the verdict on the identification of Chanel's trademark infringement.

Regarding the misleading public, the intellectual property court of Guangzhou held that "in the case, there is no evidence to prove that the sale of goods involved in the sale of goods sold by Ye Mou Zong is misleading consumers, and it is publicizing and marking Chanel's products, so that consumers are mistaken for Chanel's products when they buy them."

According to the China intellectual property report, "in the eyes of industry experts, the handling of the second instance reflects the innovation of the trial concept. For trademark, commodity packaging, decoration and other commercial logo intellectual property rights, we should combine the distinction and flexibility of the scope of protection, so as to maintain adequate distance between commercial labels, and enable the public to learn and imitate freely outside the scope of rights.

Chanel has had many litigation experiences to protect trademark rights and brand image. For any counterfeit trademark and brand that may cause misunderstanding, Chanel's practice is almost zero tolerance. Last year, the company even sued an independent retail store in Michigan to prevent the brand from doing business in the name of "Shanel".

In addition, with the rise of the online platform of second-hand luxury goods in recent years, Chanel has also directed the fight against counterfeiting to these emerging e-commerce platforms, including sending hot second-hand electric providers such as "the Real Real" and "What Goes Around Comes Around" that are preparing for IPO to attack counterfeiters and trafficking counterfeits for the purpose of sending them to court.