Sea King Awarded 300,000 Yuan in Compensation for Infringement: Brand Recognition is Key!
Recently, the Fujian Provincial Higher People's Court made a final ruling in the trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute case filed by Haibawang (Shantou) Food Co., Ltd. against a company in Jinjiang, upholding the original judgment.
The court determined that the "Haibawang" text and graphic trademark (referred to as the involved trademark) held by Haibawang Shantou Company enjoys a high level of fame and influence. The company in Jinjiang used the "HaibawangHAIBAWANG" and "Haibawang" marks (referred to as the accused marks) in the operation of products such as fish fries and instant noodles, infringing upon the exclusive rights of the involved trademark. Additionally, the act of registering "Haibawang" as a business name by the company constituted unfair competition.
Accordingly, the Fujian Higher Court rejected all the appeal requests from the company in Jinjiang, ordered it to cease the infringement, and ruled that it compensate Haibawang Shantou Company for economic losses and other expenses, totaling 300,000 yuan. This ruling upheld the original decision made by the Quanzhou Intermediate People's Court. Due to the high industry recognition of the involved brand, this case has attracted significant attention.
Well-Known Brand Suffers from Trademark and Business Name Infringement
Haibawang Shantou Company, established in 1994, mainly engages in the production and sales of frozen food. It has extensive distribution across major e-commerce platforms and offline channels and has been honored as a "National Key Leading Enterprise in Agricultural Industrialization."
Investigations revealed that the company in Jinjiang, established in May 2018, not only registered the same business name "Haibawang" but also used this name to sell products such as fish fries, ready-to-eat rice, and instant noodles. The marks it used were highly similar to the "Haibawang" series of trademarks,涉嫌构成侵权，遂向泉州中院提起诉讼。(Suspected of constituting infringement, it filed a lawsuit with the Quanzhou Intermediate Court.)
Trial Focus: Determination of Infringement and Unfair Competition
In the first instance, the defendant company argued that:
-
The mark it used was legally authorized, and the approved category of use (Class 30, including instant noodles) was different from the category of the involved trademark held by Haibawang Shantou Company (Class 29, including fish products). The products were not similar and would not cause confusion or misidentification.
-
Haibawang Shantou Company had not used the involved trademark on products such as instant noodles, and its interests were not damaged. Therefore, the claim for compensation was not valid.
-
The company name was registered in accordance with the law, and its use was legal and reasonable, with no intention of causing confusion or misappropriation.
After reviewing the case, the Quanzhou Intermediate Court held that:
-
The involved trademark, through long-term use and promotion, had become widely known among the relevant public in China and enjoyed a high level of fame and influence.
-
The accused marks were visually similar to the involved trademark, constituting similar trademarks. The authorization on which the defendant company relied had been declared invalid, and its use constituted trademark infringement.
According to the existing evidence, the "Haibawang" business name had already gained a certain level of market recognition and was known to the relevant public before 2018, meeting the criteria of "having a certain influence." Therefore, the defendant company's registration and use of this business name constituted unfair competition.
Dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment, the defendant company appealed to the Fujian Higher Court, arguing that the evidence provided by Haibawang Shantou Company was insufficient to prove the fame of the involved trademark, that its use of the "Haibawang" business name was legal and reasonable, and that the accused actions would not cause confusion and should not result in compensation.
After reviewing the case, the Fujian Higher Court ultimately ruled to reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.
