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

野花社区观看在线www官网| 亚洲妓女综合网99| 欧美男男freegayvideosroom| 在线精品亚洲一区二区小说| 妺妺坐在我腿上勃起弄了应用| 国产做爰又粗又大又爽动漫| 亚洲精品无码av中文字幕| 成人三级视频在线观看不卡| 天堂在线.www最新版| 亚洲国产AV玩弄放荡人妇系列| 婷婷五月小说| 亚洲级αv无码毛片久久精品| 精品淑女少妇av久久免费| 野花韩国视频观看免费高清的| 亚洲精品高清国产一线久久| 亚洲日韩片无码中文字幕| 无码aⅴ精品一区二区三区浪潮| 啦啦啦在线视频免费观看高清| 国产精品福利自产拍久久| 无码男男做受G片在线观看| 蜜桃视频在线观看免费网址入口| 公交车大龟廷进我身体里| 无码av高潮喷水无码专区线| 欧美性xxxxx极品| 免费人成网上在线观看免费| 亚洲s色大片| 国产精品久久自在自线不| 开心丁月五香天| 久久精品亚洲AV无码四区毛片| 首页 综合国产 亚洲 丝袜| 亚洲av伊人久久青青草原| 曰本女人牲交高潮视频| 好男人视频在线观看免费看片| 久久99热精品免费观看| 越南毛茸茸的少妇| 精品乱码一卡二卡三卡| 深夜国产成人福利在线观看| 亚洲中文字幕无码av| 我和饥渴的老熟妇| 麻豆一区二区大豆行情| 精品国产久九九|