大学生疯狂高潮呻吟免费视频,成人特级毛片全部免费播放,精品一卡二卡三卡四卡兔,国产美女被遭强高潮白浆

Unitalen Representing "DR. MARTENS" First Won Judicial Determination of a Famous Trademark, and "馬丁靴(Martin Boots)" Determined Not to Be a Common Name for Footwear and Boots Goods

August 28, 2024

Case Brief

The plaintiff, Airwair International Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Airwair" or "the plaintiff"), as the exclusive global authorized licensee of the "Dr. Martens" series of trademarks, including the No. 584207 international registered trademark, is responsible for the design, production, promotion, and sale of the series of products of the brand "Dr. Martens" in China. Since the 1960s, "Dr. Martens" footwear and boots products have been sold in more than 80 countries and regions worldwide, one of the most recognizable footwear trademark brands in the world. Since 2003, "DR. MARTENS" and its products have been advertised and reported by the Chinese newspapers and media. In 2007, the brand "Dr. Martens" entered the Chinese market, with its sales areas covering all over the country. The brand has enjoyed high popularity in China.

The defendant, Hu, the legal representative of a clothing company in Shantou, filed an application in July 2011 and obtained the approval in June 2012 for registration of the No. 9780715 "Dr. mannar" trademark for use on the same goods "clothing; footwear" as the authorized trademark. The defendant, the clothing company in Shantou, sold footwear and boots products on Tmall, Taobao, 1688 and other e-commerce platforms, and used the infringing marks such as "馬丁(Martin)", "馬丁靴(Martin Boots)", "馬丁鞋(Martin Shoes)", "MARTIN", and "Dr. Mannar" on the homepages of the stores, the linked webpages of the goods, the packaging of the shoe boxes, the wrapping paper and other places. Airwair filed a lawsuit with the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court on the grounds that the aforementioned acts of the defendant constituted trademark infringement.

Determination of the Court

Upon trial, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court held that the plaintiff, by virtue of the authorization, is entitled to conduct sales and promotion concerning the No. G584207 trademark "DR. MARTENS" (hereinafter referred to as "the authorized trademark") in China and to file a civil lawsuit on the basis of the license. The authorized trademark has enjoyed a high reputation in China after a long period of advertisement, use and promotion, and has already become a famous trademark in the goods of "footwear, boots and clothing" on which it is approved for registration. Further, the sued infringing goods also pertain to footwear and boots goods, and because the defendant Hu has registered the No. 9780715 trademark for "Dr. Mannar", it is necessary to obtain the determination of the famous trademark in this case. The sued "Dr. mannar" "Dr. Mannar馬丁靴(Martin Boots)", "", "" and other marks are similar to the plaintiff's authorized trademarks "Dr. Martens", "馬丁(Martin) Dr. MARTENS", "", etc., in terms of the letter composition, pronunciation, and Chinese and English meanings. The clothing company in Shantou used the sued marks on footwear and boots goods and sold them on various online shopping platforms. Such act would easily make the relevant public believe that the goods have the same source or there is a close connection between their sources, and thus may easily confuse the public with source of the goods. In addition, there was no evidence in the case that the term "馬丁靴(Martin Boots)" is a legal or conventionally used common name. On the contrary, various advertisements and reports concerning the authorized trademark can all reflect that the term "馬丁靴(Martin Boots)" corresponds to or is directed to the authorized trademark, which has formed a certain correspondence with the authorized trademark. Therefore, the sued acts constitute an infringement of the authorized trademark.

In the end, the court ruled that the clothing company in Shantou and Hu should cease the infringement immediately and eliminate the influence and that punitive damages should be applied to fully support the litigation request for compensation of 3 million yuan by Airwair. This case is now in its second trial.

Typical Significance

This case is a typical case for a famous trademark to combat malicious registration and infringing acts, which helps deter the malicious infringing acts of "free-riding" in the market.

 

Keywords

菠萝蜜视频网站| 日本老熟妇maturebbw| 国产成熟妇女性视频电影| 国产免费av片在线观看软件 | 国产精品无码无卡在线观看| 大学生高潮无套内谢视频| 99精品国产福利在线观看| 亚洲国产成人精品无码区在线观看| 免费无挡无摭十八禁视频在线观看| 2020亚洲日产| 欧美日本韩国| 久久99精品久久久久久噜噜| 亚洲一卡2卡3卡4卡无欧卡| 朝鲜女人大白屁股ass| 老熟女对白放荡| 国产最新免费高清在线视频| 精品伊人久久久大香线蕉| 最近更新2019中文国语字幕| 亚洲va中文字幕| 久久精品国产2020| 少妇人妻真实偷人精品视频| 野花视频在线观看免费观看8| 国产av无码专区亚洲av手机麻豆| 国产免费mv大全视频网站| 久久99精品国产麻豆| 天天躁夜夜躁AV天天爽| 精品国产乱码久久久久久免费流畅| 亚洲综合一区无码精品| 国产成人无码A区在线| 人人爽人人爽人人爽人人片av| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~视频| 超碰人人超碰人人| 精品一卡2卡三卡4卡乱码| 无码精品日韩中文字幕| 国产成人+亚洲欧洲+综合| 野花社区在线观看高清视频动漫| 最近免费中文字幕mv在线视频| 无限观看的免费视频西瓜| 亚洲欧美卡通另类丝袜美腿| 日韩精品人妻av一区二区三区| 成年片色大黄全免费网站观看|