Guangdong High People's Court made a second-instance judgment on the trademark infringement appeal case filed by Levi’s Company against Guangdong Wenshite Garment Industry Co., Ltd., holding that a series of trademarks such as WENSHITE owned by Wenshite did not infringe the exclusive right of Levi's “double arc” registered trademark. Guangdong High rejected the appeal from Levi's and upheld the first-instance decision by Shanwei Intermediate People's Court of Guangdong Province.

近日，廣東省高級人民法院（下稱廣東高院）就利惠公司（下稱Levi’s公司）起訴廣東文時特制衣實業有限公司（下稱文時特公司）商標侵權上訴案作出二審判決，認定文時特公司持有的文時特等系列商標未侵犯Levi’s公司的雙弧線注冊商標專用權，駁回其上訴，維持廣東省汕尾市中級人民法院（下稱汕尾中院）作出的一審判決。

According to the complaint, Levi's company owned　 Levi's trademark, double horses trademark and　double arc trademark, and applied for the double arc trademark in China, which was certified to be used on goods including clothing, jeans, shirts, jackets, children's wear, etc. Wenshite Company launched a series of products，and the arc design and logo used on the trouser pocket of Wenshite’s jeans were very similar to the “double arc” trademark of Levi's company. In the meantime, Wenshite also used the label design on the right side of the trouser pocket which was similar to the trademark registered by Levi's. The act could be deemed as malicious free-riding on Levi's's reputation and was suspected of infringing Levi's exclusive rights of the trademark in question. Accordingly, Levi's sued Wenshite at Shanwei Intermediate Court and requested the court to order Wenshite to cease the infringement and indemnify 500,000 yuan in damages. 

Levi’s公司訴稱，Levi’s公司持有Levi’s商標、雙馬圖商標和雙弧線商標，并在中國申請注冊了雙弧線商標，核準商品包括服裝、牛仔褲、襯衫、夾克、童裝等。文時特公司推出牛仔褲的褲袋上所使用弧線等設計、標識與Levi’s公司的雙弧線商標非常類似；同時，文時特公司還在褲袋右側縫線上使用標簽設計，與Levi’s公司注冊的褲袋商標非常相似，屬惡意攀附Levi’s公司的知名度，涉嫌侵犯Levi’s公司對涉案商標享有的注冊商標專用權。據此，Levi’s公司請求法院判令文時特公司停止侵權行為，并賠償經濟損失50萬元。

Wenshite argued that each jeans product sold by it had its own registered trademark, which was WENSHITE in words and figure. Double arc was a universal design expression. The double curved surface of Wenshite's jeans pocket was just a pocket decoration and had no obvious features that would enable consumers to mistakenly believe the products were from Levi's. Therefore, no infringement was constituted.

文時特公司辯稱，文時特公司每條牛仔褲商品上的雙弧線有極為廣泛的通用性，牛仔褲口袋中的雙曲面只是口袋的裝飾，沒有存在讓消費者誤認為是Levi’s公司產品的明顯特征，不存在侵權行為。

After hearing, Shanwei Intermediate Court held that there were differences in the combination elements, composition, and overall structure of the trademark logos of the two parties. Therefore, the two marks did not constitute similar ones. Although the　Levi's trademark and double horses trademark of Levi's were better known than Wenshite's, the evidence furnished by Levi's was not sufficient to prove that the double arc trademark had a very high reputation. The logo W on the jeans pockets of Wenshite Company was the use and deductive use of the pattern W in its registered trademark WENSHITE. The self-owned trademark WENSHITE were also prominently used on the jeans, fairly different from the trademark logo of Levi's. The trademark logos on Wenshite's products and the registered trademark of Levi's would not cause confusion among the relevant public and would not infringe the exclusive right of registered trademark of Levi’s. Accordingly, the court rejected Levi's claim.

汕尾中院經審理認為，就雙方商標標識的組合要素、構圖、組合后的整體結構看，均存在不同，故兩者不構成近似，且Levi’s商標和雙馬圖商標更為熟知，而Levi’s公司提供的證據不足以證明雙弧線商標具有非常高的知名度。而文時特公司牛仔褲后褲袋上的標識是其注冊商標WENSHITE中圖案W的使用及演繹使用，文時特公司牛仔褲上還顯著使用了與Levi’s公司商標標識完全不同的自有商標WENSHITE。因此，不會造成相關公眾的混淆，不侵犯Levi’s公司注冊商標專用權。據此，法院駁回Levi’s公司的訴訟請求。

Disgruntled with the first-instance judgement, Levi's then went on appeal to Guangdong High. The superior court upheld the first-instance decision of the trial court and revoked the appeal from Levi's on the ground that the alleged infringed trademark logo was not similar to the trademark in question and would not likely cause confusion among the relevant public. 

一審判決后，Levi’s公司不服，向廣東高院提起上訴。廣東高院以被訴侵權標識與涉案商標不構成相近似也不容易導致相關公眾混淆等為由，駁回其上訴，維持了一審判決。

（by Jiang Xu/Chen Zhaomin）

（中國知識產權報，記者姜旭，通訊員陳朝敏，2018年07月25日）