SHIP Court: The use of “LAN ZHI SHUI KU / LΛNEIGE” in Class 18 infringes upon the well-known trademark “LANZHI / LΛNEIGE” in Class 3

上海知识产权法院认定第18类“兰芝水库/LΛNEIGE”商标侵犯了第3类“兰芝/LΛNEIGE”驰名商标的商标专用权
SHIP Court: The use of “LAN ZHI SHUI KU / LΛNEIGE” in Class 18 infringes upon the well-known trademark “LANZHI / LΛNEIGE” in Class 3

案例来源/ Case Docket:

• （2017）沪73民初394号、395号民事判决书
• Civil Judgments Nos. (2017) H73MC394 & 395

承办律师/ Competent Attorneys:

• 苏剑飞，上海鸿孚律师事务所律师（394号、395号）
• 孙丽平，上海鸿孚律师事务所律师（394号）
• 郝隽一，上海鸿孚律师事务所律师（395号）
• Eric Su, lawyer of Shanghai Hong Fu Law Firm (for cases nos. 394 & 395)
• Kayla Sun, lawyer of Shanghai Hong Fu Law Firm (for case no. 394)
• Karen Hao, lawyer of Shanghai Hong Fu Law Firm (for case no 395)

涉案主体/ Parties Concerned:

• 原告：株式会社爱茉莉太平洋/ AMOREPACIFIC CORPORATION
• 被告一：兰芷（上海）皮具有限公司/ LANZHI (SHANGHAI) LEATHERWARE CO., LTD
• 被告二：周小君/ ZHOU XIAOJUN
• 被告三：爱茉莉太平洋集团有限公司/ AIMOLI PACIFIC GROUP LIMITED
• Plaintiff: AMORE PACIFIC CORPORATION
• Defendant I: LANZHI (SHANGHAI) LEATHERWARE CO., LTD (hereinafter “LAN ZHI CO.”)
• Defendant II: ZHOU XIAOJUN
• Defendant III: AIMOLI PACIFIC GROUP LIMITED (hereinafter “AIMOLI LTD.”)

案件导读/ Case Overview:

原告爱茉莉太平洋株式会社是“兰芝”、“LΛNEIGE”等商标在第3类化妆品产品上的商标权利人。经过在中国大陆地区持续广泛的宣传和使用，原告的“兰芝”、“LΛNEIGE”商标在化妆品领域已达驰名程度。“爱茉莉太平洋”，作为原告企业字号，也已具有一定市场知名度。被告兰芷（上海）皮具有限公司（简称“兰芷公司”）、周小君、爱茉莉太平洋集团有限公司（简称“爱茉莉太平洋公司”），分别是被诉“兰芝水库/LΛNEIGE”女士皮包的生产商、销售商、品牌授权方，周小君同时还是上述两家公司的唯一股东兼法定代表人或董事。三被告在第18类皮具类商品上使用了与原告“兰芝”、“LΛNEIGE”相同或高度近似的标识，并在其官网微博、微信公众号上宣称其产品为“爱茉莉太平洋”集团旗下产品。

The Plaintiff AMORE PACIFIC CORPORATION owns the registered trademarks “兰芝” (read and hereinafter “LAN ZHI”, an equivalent of “LΛNEIGE”, hereinafter “LAN ZHI”), “LΛNEIGE” etc. on cosmetics in Class 3. The trademarks have acquired well-known status in the relevant domain after continuous and extensive use and advertising in the Chinese Mainland. “AMOREPACIFIC” as the plaintiff’s trade name has also established a certain degree of visibility in the market. Meanwhile, the Defendants LAN ZHI CO., ZHOU XIAOJUN, and AIMOLI LTD. are respectively the manufacturer, the distributor and the licensor for the “兰芝水库 / LΛNEIGE” (read and hereinafter “LAN ZHI SHUI KU”, meaning “LAN ZHI Water Bank”) branded women’s bags. The individual ZHOU XIAOJUN is the one and only shareholder and the legal representative/director of the companies sued. The Defendants were using marks identical or similar to the plaintiff’s “LAN ZHI” and “LΛNEIGE” on leather wears in Class 18 and advertising the products as associated with “爱茉莉太平洋” (an equivalent of “AMOREPACIFIC”) on social media platforms (Weibo, WeChat).

本案中，上海鸿孚律师事务所协助原告爱茉莉太平洋株式会社成功获得一审法院的支持。上海知识产权法院在认可了原告“兰芝”、“LΛNEIGE”商标在化妆品产品上驰名，以及“爱茉莉太平洋”字号享有一定市场知名度的情况下，认定被告生产销售的“兰芝水库/LΛNEIGE”女士皮包产品侵犯了原告驰名商标的商标注册商标专用权，同时侵犯了原告“爱茉莉太平洋”的企业字号，构成不正当竞争。本案作为涉及侵犯驰名商标专用权及不正当竞争的案件，具有参考意义。

In the Plaintiff’s lawsuits against the infringements, we Shanghai Hong Fu Law Firm (HongFangLaw) helped the brand owner win over the first-instance court, in the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court (SHIPC). It is held that “LAN ZHI” and “AMOREPACIFIC” are well-known trademarks on cosmetics, and “AMOREPACIFIC” enjoys considerable popularity in the market; thus the Defendants’ activities surrounding “LAN ZHISHUI KU / LΛNEIGE” has constituted infringement upon the Plaintiff’s exclusive rights to its well-known trademarks; the Defendants were also found with unfair competition by infringing upon the Plaintiff’s trade name. With two causes involved at the same time, the disputes offer much to be learned.

审查视角/ Examination Opinion:

• 被告爱茉莉太平洋公司在第18类上享有第3648074号“LANEIGE”商标专用权，三被告在女士皮包上使用“LΛNEIGE”标识，是否侵犯原告第3类“LΛNEIGE”驰名商标专用权？
• Considerating that the Defendant III AIMOLI LTD. holds the registered trademark No. 3648074 “LANEIGE” in Class 18, does the use by the Defendants of “LΛNEIGE” on relevant goods still constitute an infringement of the Plaintiff’s well-known trademark “LΛNEIGE” in Class 3?

被告在涉案商品上使用了有别于其自己申请注册的“LANEIGE”商标（第3648074号）而与原告涉案的“LΛNEIGE”商标完全一致的“LΛNEIGE”商标。因此，应当认为三被告在经营被诉侵权商品的过程中使用的“LΛNEIGE”与原告涉案“LΛNEIGE”商标相同。结合后文将阐述的三被告的恶意情节，且在涉案商品上使用“LΛNEIGE”标识确实极易误导公众，致使原告利益可能受到损害。因此，三被告在女士皮包上使用“LΛNEIGE”标识，侵犯了原告第3类“LΛNEIGE”驰名商标专用权。

The Defendants have been using the same mark as the Plaintiff’s registration “LΛNEIGE” instead of the trademark No. 3648074 “LANEIGE” held by the Defendant III on the Sued Products. Combined with the Defendant’s bad faith to be elaborated in the following paragraphs, as well as the high degree of confusion and the damages to the Plaintiff that may arise from the trademark use, the Defendants should be deemed infringing upon the well-known trademarks by using “LΛNEIGE” on women’s bags.

• 三被告是否共同实施了商标侵权行为和不正当竞争行为？
• Are the trademark infringement and unfair competition joint violations by the three Defendants?

一审法院认为，被告兰芷公司、周小君、爱茉莉太平洋公司明知涉案的“兰芝”、“LΛNEIGE”商标属于驰名商标，仍然恶意合谋，共同实施了复制、摹仿、使用原告驰名商标的商标侵权行为，以及擅自使用原告有一定影响的企业名称等不正当竞争行为。具体体现在：

According to the SHIPC, the three Defendants, while aware of the well-known status of “LANZHI” and “LΛNEIGE”, still conspired to jointly copy, imitate and use the plaintiff’s trademark and company name that had established certain influence. In the specific:

• 三被告共同经营了被诉侵权商品，并在经营被诉侵权商品过程中对于具体企业名称、标识的使用有着明显的意思联络：
• The Defendants were jointly engaged in the operations related to the Sued Products, during which there was obvious convergence of intention on the use of any company names and marks.

（兰芷公司、爱茉莉太平洋公司均由周小君设立，且周小君是兰芷公司唯一股东和法定代表人，是爱茉莉太平洋公司的唯一股东和董事，在没有其他证据的情况下，应当认为周小君掌握、决策了兰芷公司、爱茉莉太平洋公司的具体经营活动。）

(LAN ZHI CO., AIMOLI LTD. were both founded by ZHOU XIAOJUN who is the one and only shareholder and legal representative of LAN ZHI CO., and the one and only shareholder and director of AIMOLI LTD. Absent contrary evidence, it is reasonable to attribute the sued companies’ business to ZHOU’s management and decision-making.)

• 三被告在共同经营被诉侵权商品的过程中，具有造成相关公众对被诉侵权商品与原告之间具有特定联系的混淆和误认的主观恶意：
• The Defendants had malicious intentions to mislead the relevant public to associate the Sue Products with the Plaintiff during their joint operations:

1）周小君以“爱茉莉太平洋”作为字号注册了被告三爱茉莉太平洋公司，并且三被告在经营被诉侵权商品时，将爱茉莉太平洋公司作为被诉侵权商品的品牌授权方，加以宣传；

ZHOU XIAOJUN had registered AIMOLI PACIFIC GROUP LIMITED (Defendant III) which shares a Chinese name with AMOREPACIFIC; the namesake was being advertising as the licensor for the Sued Products during the Defendants’ commercial activities;

2）三被告在经营被诉侵权商品时将“兰芝”、“LΛNEIGE”捆绑使用，使“兰芝”与“LΛNEIGE”形成相互指代的关系；

The Defendants were constantly using “LAN ZHI” and “LΛNEIGE” side by side, which had come to indicate that the names were mutually referential and exchangeable;

3） 在宣传被诉侵权商品的过程中，三被告运用了“LANEIGE兰芝品牌产品感恩免费大放送！有兰芝护肤水和兰芝手袋”、“在过去的二十年，兰芝在护肤品领域铸就了许多奇迹，…，二十年后正式推出化妆品以外的兰芝手袋系列”等宣传语；

The Defendants were promoting the Sued Products with the slogans: “LANEIGE Giveaway! LAN ZHI lotions and handbags for free”, “In the past 20 years, LAN ZHI has made a number of miracles in skincare … and now officially launches a new handbag series”;

4） 三被告在宣传被诉侵权商品的过程中使用了原告“兰芝”、“LΛNEIGE”化妆品代言人宋慧乔的形象；

The Defendants were using images of the Korean actress Song Hye-Kyo who had been adopted by the Plaintiff as the face of the “LAN ZHI” and “LΛNEIGE” branded cosmetics;

5） 由周小君注册的“兰芝水库”商标与原告的商品名称“兰芝水酷”的发音完全一致。

The trademark “LANZHI SHUI KU” registered by ZHOU XIAOJUN shares the same pronunciation with a product of the Plaintiff’s.

鸿方评论/ HFL Comments:

• 我们认为，本案中，被告爱茉莉太平洋公司虽然在第18类相关商品上注册了第3648074 号“LANEIGE”商标，但是在实际使用过程中自行改变了商标标识，完全复制了原告在化妆品领域驰名的“LΛNEIGE”商标，二者商标看似仅为细微差别，实际上彻底改变了其原有注册商标的显著特征。结合三被告的主观恶意情节，因此，三被告在第18类女士皮包商品上使用“LΛNEIGE”的行为，不属于注册商标的使用。
• In our opinion, though the Plaintiff III has the registered trademark No. 3648074 “LANEIGE” in Class 18, it has changed the reproduction in actual use to the extent that the mark becomes a blatant copy of the plaintiff’s well-known trademark “LΛNEIGE” in class 3. Despite the seemingly subtle difference, the distinctive character of the trademark has been altered. In addition, the Defendants are in bad faith in many ways. Their use of “LΛNEIGE” is therefore not legal trademark use.
• 在类似案件中，许多不法商家通过不正当手段注册与知名品牌相近似的商标标识，在实际使用过程中自行变更该标识以便更加靠近该知名品牌，这样的行为是侵犯他人注册商标的行为，是不可取的。
• Similarly, there are a number of mal-intentioned business operators at large who attempt to register marks similar to famous brands by all means and go on to use them in even more confusing ways with alterations. This constitutes blatant trademark infringement and should be resisted in commercial practice.

If you would like some more personalized review of the news from us, please kindly let us know by writing to:public.relation@hongfanglaw.com. Thank you.