Disputes over Commodity Name--A Fake “Joyoung” Spotted

Joyoung Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Joyoung company) has found a soybean milk machine with the same name as its registered trademark “Joyoung” in the market. It believes that the supermarket in Beichen district of Tianjin municipality that sells soybean milk machines with the name “Joyoung” has infringed on its exclusive right to the trademark of “Joyoung”, and sued it to the court.

On December 20, 2017, under the supervision of a notary of Tianjin Nankai Notary Public Office, Joyoung company entrusted an agent to purchase a soybean milk machine in the supermarket as an ordinary consumer and take photos of the scene and articles. Joyoung company believes that the sales of the involved goods infringed Joyoung company’s exclusive right to the trademark “Joyoung” and appealed it to Tianjin No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court  (hereinafter referred to as Tianjin No. 1 Intermediate Court), requesting the court to order the supermarket immediately stop the infringement and compensate Joyoung company for economic loss of 100,000 Yuan.

The supermarket operator argued that the supermarket had been closed in October 2015. The fact claimed by Joyoung company to have bought Joyoung soybean milk machine from the supermarket on December 20, 2017 was fictitious. It’s not fair to allow Joyoung company itself to judge the authenticity of the soybean milk machine.

After the hearing, Tianjin No. 1 Intermediate Court held that trademarks 3407087, 7315858 and 5205567 were all valid, and that the exclusive right to use registered trademarks enjoyed by Joyoung company should be protected by law. The court of first instance ordered the defendant to immediately stop selling soybean milk machines infringing the exclusive rights of registered trademarks No. 3407087, No. 7315858 and No. 520567, and compensate the plaintiff Joyoung company for the economic losses and reasonable expenses of 20,000 Yuan, and rejected other lawsuit requests of Joyoung company.

After the first judgment of Tianjin No. 1 Intermediate Court, the supermarket refused to accept the judgment and appealed to Tianjin Higher People’s Court.

In the case, the supermarket claimed that it had closed down in 2015, but it did not provide evidence to prove the fact. Therefore, the second instance court decided that it was appropriate for the first instance court to judge on the basis of evidence in the case that the supermarket was the seller of the goods accused of infringement.

Thus, Tianjin Higher Court made the second-instance judgment that the appeal request of the supermarket could not be established and should be rejected; the first-instance judgment was based on clear facts and correct application of law and should be maintained.

August 14, 2019

Source: Intellectual Property Protection in China

Photo from: 6199pic.com