Guinness World Records Limited (hereafter referred as the “Guinness”) was established in November 1954 in the United Kingdom and is a well-known company specializing in world record certification and other services, and publishes the Guinness World Records series every year. WRCA (Xiamen) Information Consulting Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ”WRCA Xiamen”) is also a company engaged in world record certification services. In October, 2018, it was authorized by the World Record Certification Agency to operate as an agent for the world record certification in China.
Guinness found that WRCA Xiamen used Guinness's pictures and related data on its website and other channels for publicity purposes, and subsequently used logos that are also very similar to Guinness's name, certificate design, certification officer's uniform and other decorations, causing confusion among many subjects such as ordinary consumers, the media and even Guinness's clients and service providers. Guinness sued the counterpart in court for not only alleged trademark infringement, but also for unfair competition.
In response to Guinness's accusations, WRCA Xiamen filed a countersuit with the court, claiming that it did not engage in unfair competition. On the contrary, Guinness's long-term practice of promoting itself as "the world’s most authoritative record certification agency " and "the ultimate authority of world records" was suspected of constituting unfair competition by false propaganda.
The Intermediate Court of Xiamen, Fujian Province rendered a judgment of first instance in 2019 after a trial. The court of first instance held that: the use of logos similar to Guinness's trademark by WRCA Xiamen constituted an infringement of Guinness's trademark rights; WRCA Xiamen’s use of similar certification certificates, quotations and certification staff clothing, as well as the use of "the world's only world record certification body" constituted unfair competition by confusion and false propaganda. On these grounds, the court ruled WRCA Xiamen to compensate Guinness 1 million yuan for economic losses.
After the first trial, both parties refused to accept the decision and appealed to the Fujian High Court respectively. The court of second instance held that the conduct of WRCA Xiamen under litigation not only constituted an infringement of Guinness's trademark rights, but also constituted confusion and false propaganda. The court of first instance did not err in its judgment on this issue.
In addition, the court of second instance held that "Officially Amazing" described Guinness's vision and "To be the ultimate authority on record-breaking achievement" described Guinness’s mission and Guinness did not claim to be the official agency or ultimate authority for world record certification. Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance that Guinness should stop the use of the foregoing expressions as they violated Article 9 of the Advertising Law which prohibits the use of terms such as "national level," "highest level" and "best" lacked factual and legal basis and was corrected by the court of second instance.
Source:http://www.iprchn.com/Index_NewsContent.aspx?NewsId=133722