The left picture is “New Balance”, the right picture is New Bechen Sneakers. (Author Pudong New Area Court for map)
China New Network Shanghai April 16 (Li Ying Chen Weifeng) Two brands “New Balance” and “New Barlun” “. To this end, New Balance Trade (China) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as New Balance) makes unfair competition from Newbarlen (China) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as New Barron), the unfair competition is 30 million yuan (RMB, Next).
On the 16th, Shanghai Pudong New Area People’s Court (hereinafter referred to as Shanghai Pudong Court) made a first-instance judgment of unfounded competition disputes: In addition to stopping unfair competition behavior, the public statement eliminates the impact, there is still a compensation economic loss 10 million yuan and the right to expense 800,000 yuan.
The Pudong Court said that as the most important, most significant part of the respective decoration, the two N identities used by the defendant are all visual effects of capital English letters N. In the case of isolation alignment, especially footwear goods as mass consumer goods, consumers usually apply general attention, the two identifiers are constant, and the difference is not obvious in terms of visual effects. It is not enough to cause consumers. Note that both make it approximation.
The court believes that Newburren’s competitors as the same industry, in order to know the N-letter décor of the plaintiff, still use an approximately identifier in the same location of the same type of goods produced, and it climbs the plaintiff Goodwill. The subjective fault caused by the market confusion is obvious, objectively enough to cause consumers to confuse, misunderstand, violate the principles of honesty and recognized business ethics, and constitute unfair competition.
In addition to stopping unfair competition, the impact is eliminated, Newburlen should also bear the liability of compensation. The actual loss of the plaintiff and the amount of the profit of New Barron have not been determined, but the existing evidence has proved that the last limit of the plaintiff exceeds 5 million yuan, the court’s comprehensive plaintiff shoes, the N letters, the N letter decoration, the defendant is unfair Competitive behavior is longer, wide range, and is more obvious, and the amount of compensation is more than 10 million yuan, and the rational expenditure of 800,000 yuan is fully supported.
According to this, the court made the above judgment according to law. (Finish)