All trademark infringements will be liquidated sooner or later.
Perspective of the "crocodile" dispute
Xinhuanet Shanghai Channel reporter Ye Guo Biao Shen Wenmin
"French Crocodile" and "Singapore Crocodile" are fighting again.
In March 2004, Shanghai No.2 Intermediate People's Court ordered France Crocodile Shirt Co., Ltd. (referred to as "French Crocodile") to infringe the copyright of Singapore Crocodile International Pte Ltd. (referred to as "Singapore Crocodile") and demanded compensation of $65,438 +0. On July 12 this year, the once-heated crocodile lawsuit "1 USD" caused another wave, and the Shanghai High Court revoked the first-instance judgment on the grounds that it was not suitable for our court to accept, making the case even more confusing.
Is there a blind spot in intellectual property protection?
The decision of the Shanghai High Court clearly inspired the French predators. On July 12, French crocodile held a press conference and announced the good news of "winning the case". The media also reported that "the French crocodile turned over and the Singapore crocodile lost".
However, on July 17, at the news conference of Singapore Crocodile Organization, Hong, the chairman of Singapore Crocodile International Pte Ltd, said that the statement and report that Singapore Crocodile "lost the case" and French Crocodile "won the case" was a "misunderstanding" of the judgment of the court of second instance.
Lacoste Shanghai authorized store
As lawyers representing Singapore predators, Professor Tao Xinliang, Dean of Intellectual Property College of Shanghai University, and Associate Professor Zhang Ping of Peking University Law School pointed out: "In the trademark authorization procedure, if a party claims to protect copyright only because others use his works when applying for registration of a trademark, it should be resolved through relief procedures such as objections stipulated in the Trademark Law, which is not suitable for people's courts." Reasons for revoking the judgment of first instance. There are two aspects in the trial of a case by the court: one is to try the substantive content according to the legal facts; Second, the review procedure is fair and legal according to the procedural law. The court of second instance made a procedural ruling rather than a substantive amendment, and did not say that French crocodiles did not infringe copyright.
At the same time, Tao Xinliang and Zhang Ping believe that the relief procedures such as objections stipulated in the Trademark Law only solve the vertical administrative problem of "whether to grant the trademark right" and cannot deal with the horizontal civil infringement of copyright in the process of trademark application. Therefore, in the process of trademark application, the simultaneous horizontal civil tort disputes can only be solved through horizontal civil litigation. According to the judgment logic of the court of second instance, the horizontal civil tort disputes that occurred at the same time in the process of trademark application became abandoned, and the intellectual property protection system formed a blind spot. Therefore, this "inadmissibility" ruling of the court of second instance itself is "undesirable" according to law. At the same time, I am afraid that "inappropriate" is not a legal term, and I am afraid that the first-instance judgment of this case cannot be directly revoked just on the basis of this non-mandatory and non-legal term.
Associate Professor Zhang Ping told the reporter that the court accepted some cases in which some enterprises maliciously registered other people's domain names. It is debatable that the Shanghai High Court revoked the first-instance judgment of Singapore crocodile v. French crocodile for copyright infringement. There is still a "grey zone" in China's intellectual property protection, and relevant laws and regulations need to be further improved and perfected.
Hong said that the judgment of the court of second instance did not stop the dispute, but caused "misunderstanding" from the outside world and deepened the contradiction between the two sides. Singapore Crocodile reserves the right to continue to appeal to the relevant departments.
The feud between two crocodiles has a long history.
The brand dispute between French predators and Singaporean predators can be traced back to more than 30 years ago. The "lawsuit of $65,438 +0" is just a bite in the China market in recent years.
From 65438 to 0947, Chen, a Malaysian Chinese from Shantou, Guangdong Province, created an English italic "crocodile" with crocodile graphic works. In the work, the crocodile's head is facing left, its tail is upturned, its figure is slender and its mouth is slightly open. Soon, this crocodile graphic work was approved as a registered trademark by the Singapore authorities.
Crocodile Shanghai authorized store
French crocodile was born in 1933. Its body is green, its head is facing right, its body is stout, its mouth is open, its sharp teeth are exposed, and the word "crocodile" is embedded in its body. The "Father of French Crocodiles" is Rene Lacoste, a famous French tennis player who won the world tennis championship and was nicknamed "Mr. Crocodile".
In the early days, crocodiles of European descent and crocodiles of Asian descent lived in peace. But in the 1960s and 1970s, with the expansion of two predators, especially French predators, they met face to face and realized each other's existence and threat to themselves. Immediately, two "crocodile" lawsuits continued.
The first lawsuit of two crocodiles began in Japan 1969. The crocodile in Singapore sued the crocodile trademark infringement in France, and the crocodile in France believed that "there was a significant difference between the two trademarks" and won the case. 1980 Singapore crocodile sent a lawyer's letter to the dealer of French crocodile in Singapore about the use of crocodile icon.
The long-term struggle made the two crocodiles feel tired, and they gradually realized that since the two sides are far apart in appearance (the courts all over the world agree with this difference), it is only a waste of resources to continue fighting, and both sides will lose. Why not recognize each other and live in peace? 1983, two crocodiles shook hands and signed a deposit agreement: mutual recognition of trademarks; End all legal disputes and agree to jointly crack down on other trademark infringers; The agreement covers five markets: Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia and Taiwan Province Province of China. It also shows that it is still applicable to countries and regions where the other two companies will exist and develop. 1985, the deposit agreement was extended to India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and South Korea.
Why is the honeymoon so short?
However, the "honeymoon" did not last long. When two "crocodiles" rushed to the Chinese mainland market with great potential, the two sides, which were already at loggerheads, went to war again.
Perhaps we know from past experience that many Asian markets are passive because they are slow to sell, or because the China market with great potential is too attractive. As early as 1980, the French crocodile got ahead of us and registered the crocodile trademark in China. However, it was not until 1993 that the Singaporean crocodile applied for trademark registration with the China State Trademark Office. In this regard, the French crocodile immediately expressed opposition. French crocodile sued Singapore crocodile for trademark infringement four times in Beijing and Shanghai, which led to a long journey of 12 years for Singapore crocodile trademark registration. It was not until the end of June 2005 that the registration was finally approved by the State Trademark Office and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Authority. During this period, French crocodiles have always claimed that because Singaporean crocodiles didn't register crocodile trademarks in Chinese mainland, they sold products with crocodile logos in Chinese mainland, which infringed the exclusive right of French crocodiles to use trademarks in Chinese mainland.
1995, the French crocodile applied in China to register the pattern of the Singaporean crocodile as a cosmetic trademark. Obviously, this gives the crocodile in Singapore a powerful opportunity to fight back. In 2002, the crocodile in Singapore sued the crocodile in France for copyright infringement, demanding to stop the infringement, making an apology in the newspaper and paying 1 USD. In March, 2004, the Shanghai No.2 Intermediate People's Court upheld the claim of Singapore Crocodile in the first instance.
Is the real enemy the other side or the fake crocodile?
Philippe Lacoste, the grandson of Henri lacoste, the founder of the French crocodile, once told the media in Shanghai that the French crocodile applied for the registered trademark of cosmetics with the pattern of the Singapore crocodile, which was entirely for defensive purposes and was not intended to be put into use.
Hong told reporters that when the two parties signed the deposit agreement at 1983, the French crocodile deliberately concealed the fact that the trademark was registered at 1980, so the deposit agreement did not include the market. 1985, French crocodiles entered the Indian market, and Singapore crocodiles registered in India as early as 1952 issued a "consent form" to help French crocodiles successfully register in India. In the past, French crocodiles entered the traditional sphere of influence of Singapore crocodiles, and Singapore crocodiles basically adopted a compatible attitude. However, when Singapore predators entered the China market, French predators intervened in various ways, with an obvious intention of monopolizing the China market and crowding out Singapore predators.
Hong is puzzled by the French crocodile shirt: two crocodiles can survive in Singapore with a population of only 5 million, but why can't they be compatible in the China market with a population of 65.438+300 million?
It is understood that French crocodile registered its trademark in Chinese mainland as early as 1980, but it was not until 1995 that it opened its first store in Shanghai and set up a factory in Pudong. At present, there are hundreds of stores in China. Although the crocodile in Singapore was involved in the trademark registration by the crocodile in France, it experienced a difficult course of 12 years, but it made great strides in market expansion. After 1993 landed in China market, Singapore Crocodile quickly established more than 500 stores covering the whole country, and set up factories in Shenyang, Suzhou and other places. Since 12, the sales of authorized products such as crocodile clothing in Singapore have reached 6 billion RMB. Chinese mainland accounts for 30% of global crocodile sales. Recently, Singapore Crocodile invested/kloc-0.2 billion yuan to build a global headquarters building in Shanghai, and plans to move the global strategic center to Shanghai in 2006.
Industry experts pointed out that, in fact, Singapore predators and French predators are not only "different in appearance", but also very different in market positioning. Singapore crocodiles mainly wear high-grade business casual clothes, while French crocodiles mainly wear high-grade sports casual clothes. Today, both crocodiles have obtained trademark registration in China, which has been recognized by consumers and protected by law. China's market is so big that both sides have no worries about finding room for development. Perhaps the enemies of the two crocodiles are not each other. At present, fake crocodiles are flooding the market.
Enlightenment: Be good at competition and know how to "co-compete"
The protracted trademark dispute between two crocodiles has aroused widespread concern from domestic and foreign media and the public.
Although they were tit for tat in court, when talking about the significance of this dispute, Tao Xinliang, the lawyer representing Singaporean crocodile, and Huang Hui, the lawyer representing French crocodile, agreed that this was a legal conflict after two well-known foreign trademarks entered the China market, and the final judgment of the court would provide effective practical help for the new intellectual property issues arising under the background of economic globalization.
Zhang Ping, an intellectual property expert and associate professor at Peking University Law School, analyzed that under the impetus of economic globalization, many foreign enterprises "came in" and many China enterprises "went out", and there were more and more disputes involving intellectual property rights. If enterprises in China want to become bigger and stronger and maintain long-term stability, they must take the road of independent innovation, establish and maintain their own brands and own independent intellectual property rights. Any fake or "hitchhiking" behavior may be cheap in front of them, but it won't go far. In addition, enterprises should have a kind of mind and vision, require survival, development and cooperation, be good at competition and know "competition and cooperation". Instead of fighting each other, it is better to seek common ground while reserving differences and seek common development. (End)