On February 22, the Guangdong High Court reversed a trademark
infringement dispute in a retrial between Fila Sports Co., Ltd.
("Fila") and Hunan Jiahui Technology Co., Ltd.
("Jiahui"). The court upheld the first-instance judgment
that ordered Jiahui to immediately stop infringing on Fila's
following trademark rights "Fila Company in Chinese & 
," "
," "
," and "
," and to stop producing and selling
infringing products. Jiahui should compensate for economic losses
(including reasonable expenses to stop the infringement) for RMB
200,000 (USD27,780).
In this case, courts at all levels confirmed that Jiahui's processing and production activities were foreign-related OEM activities. Courts at all levels, however, have differed on whether Jiahui's act of affixing the allegedly infringing logos on its goods is considered trademark use within the meaning of trademark law. On retrial, the Guangdong High Court found that: trademark use is an objective behavior, which usually includes many processes, such as physical affixing in the production process, marketing, and sales in the circulation, etc. When a trademark logo is physically affixed to a manufactured or processed product, if the logo has the likelihood of distinguishing the source of the goods and can play a role in distinguishing the source of the goods, such use should be deemed to be "trademark use" as stipulated in the Trademark Law. In this case, Jiahui, as an OEM, affixed the allegedly infringing logos on the garments it processed, which obviously had the purpose of identifying the source of goods. The logos can also have the actual effect of identifying the source of the goods and should be recognized as trademark use. Affixing a trademark is an objective act, and the identification function of the trademark is an objective result. Jiahui was fulfilling the obligations of the foreign-related OEM processing contract. This is only the reason for the act of affixing the trademark, and it will not affect the qualitative nature of such trademark use. In addition, with the development of e-commerce and the Internet, even if the allegedly infringing goods are exported goods, there is still the possibility of being returned to China. In summary, the second instance court found that Jiahui's affixing a trademark did not constitute trademark use on the grounds that the allegedly infringing goods had not entered the mainland China market for circulation and sale, and the alleged infringing logo did not have the function of identifying the source of the goods in the mainland Chinese market was wrong and this court corrects it.
Jiahui claimed that it obtained the production authorization from Shengrui LIU, the owner of the "Feidisi in Chinese & FTSS" trademark, and directly exported products to the clients after OEM processing, so it did not infringe. According to the Trademark Law on the determination of trademark infringement, the principle of liability for trademark infringement shall be the principle of no-fault liability. Moreover, trademark rights are territorial. The trademark of the third-party in the case is only registered in the Taiwan region, and has no trademark rights in mainland China. Moreover, the trademark application of the third-party in the case was registered in 2019, which was later than the registration date of the Cited Marks of Fila. Fila has submitted evidence to prove that its series of trademarks involved in the case had a high reputation in the domestic market before the third-party trademark application was filed. As an operator in the same industry, Jiahui should have known about this fact. There is a clear difference between the "Feidisi in Chinese & FTSS" trademark and the accused infringing logos. The accused infringing logos have the upper and lower color distinction of the initial letters, which is completely consistent with the design of the initial letters of Fila's trademark, making it more similar to Fila's trademark. Under this premise, Jiahui still affixed the alleged infringing logo that is obviously different in appearance from its authorized logo on the clothing it processed. It was at least negligent and difficult to believe that it fulfilled its duty of reasonable review and care. In summary, Jiahui's non-infringement defense cannot be established.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
