The Beijing Intellectual Property Court ruled in a trademark infringement dispute between Meichao Group Co., Ltd. and Beijing Xiujie New Building Materials Co., Ltd. It ordered Xiujie to stop the infringement and pay Meichao a total of RMB 10 million.
Meichao claimed exclusive rights to the trademark “墙锢” for goods including industrial adhesives and glue, and argued that the mark had acquired a strong reputation in China. Without permission, Xiujie prominently used “秀洁墙锢”, “易康墙锢” and “兴潮墙锢” on similar goods that it manufactured and sold.
Xiujie argued that “墙锢” was a customary generic name for the goods concerned and that its use of the characters was not trademark use. It therefore asked the court to dismiss Meichao’s claims.
On the evidence submitted by both parties, the court found that “墙锢” was not a generic term in the industry. Xiujie displayed those characters in large type in prominent positions on its product containers. This constituted trademark use and infringed Meichao’s registered trademark rights.
Meichao sought compensation based on the profits earned through the infringement and provided evidence of those profits. The court ordered Xiujie to produce records of its actual business operations, but Xiujie refused. Taking account of the established facts and Xiujie’s obstruction of the production of evidence, the court upheld Meichao’s claim in full and awarded RMB 10 million. The original report described this as the court’s highest award in a civil trademark infringement case since its establishment.
Article 63(2) of the Trademark Law provides that, where a right holder has made every effort to supply evidence and the relevant accounts and materials are mainly controlled by the infringer, the court may order the infringer to produce them. If the infringer refuses or provides false information, the court may determine compensation by reference to the right holder’s claims and evidence.
Source: http://rmfyb.chinacourt.org/paper/html/2016-11/22/content_118762.htm?div=-1