On February 21st, Michelin Shenyang Company v. Fengshen Tire Beijing Sales Agency and Fengshen Tire Co., Ltd. infringed on the disputes concerning the improper decoration of well-known commodities, and the case of unfair competition disputes was formally heard in the Chaoyang District People’s Court in Beijing. A court testimony was given on the day of the trial, that is, the parties questioned the evidence submitted by the other party.
According to the plaintiff, Michelin tires have gained a high reputation in the Chinese market and are well-known commodities. Its unique tire pattern decoration is one of the main ways for consumers to identify Michelin tires. The 3 tires produced and sold by Fengshen Company infringed on the decoration of its famous products and violated the provisions of Articles 2 and 5 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, causing misrecognition among relevant consumers.
The defendant Fang Fengshen lawyer believes that well-known trademarks are not well-known commodities. The plaintiff did not have sufficient evidence to prove that its 3 pattern tires were well-known commodities and therefore were not protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Act. Tire pattern is not unique decoration of tire products, and it does not have discernment and beautification. Consumers mainly choose tires based on tire functions, and they will never buy tires by identifying patterns. It is even less likely to confuse the brand of tires. In this regard, the plaintiff's lawyer admitted in court that there is no evidence in this regard.
In this session, the plaintiff's lawyer filed two applications with the court. The first was to apply for a court to suspend the trial of the case. The plaintiff believes that Fengshen's three tread design patents that do not meet the conditions for authorization should be invalid and will be submitted to the Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office for review. It is understood that the three tire treads of Michelin have not applied for design patents and invention patents in China, while Aeolus tires have applied for design patents. The second is to apply to the court for a deferment. The judge said that the two applications for the plaintiff will be collegial. The time for the next session is uncertain.
Some legal professionals analyzed that compared with other intellectual property dispute cases, the decoration of goods is highly arbitrarily and weakly protected, so it is estimated that it is difficult to make judgments in the short term.
Before the Spring Festival this year, Beijing Chaoyang District People’s Court formally accepted Michelin v. Fengshen Tire’s Beijing sales agent and Fengshen Tire Co., Ltd. infringement case. The plaintiff requested that the defendant be ordered to immediately stop the infringement, and the plaintiff should be compensated with an economic loss of 1 million yuan, and apologized in the national newspapers. At present, the parties and the trial is concerned about the progress of the case.
According to the plaintiff, Michelin tires have gained a high reputation in the Chinese market and are well-known commodities. Its unique tire pattern decoration is one of the main ways for consumers to identify Michelin tires. The 3 tires produced and sold by Fengshen Company infringed on the decoration of its famous products and violated the provisions of Articles 2 and 5 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, causing misrecognition among relevant consumers.
The defendant Fang Fengshen lawyer believes that well-known trademarks are not well-known commodities. The plaintiff did not have sufficient evidence to prove that its 3 pattern tires were well-known commodities and therefore were not protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Act. Tire pattern is not unique decoration of tire products, and it does not have discernment and beautification. Consumers mainly choose tires based on tire functions, and they will never buy tires by identifying patterns. It is even less likely to confuse the brand of tires. In this regard, the plaintiff's lawyer admitted in court that there is no evidence in this regard.
In this session, the plaintiff's lawyer filed two applications with the court. The first was to apply for a court to suspend the trial of the case. The plaintiff believes that Fengshen's three tread design patents that do not meet the conditions for authorization should be invalid and will be submitted to the Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office for review. It is understood that the three tire treads of Michelin have not applied for design patents and invention patents in China, while Aeolus tires have applied for design patents. The second is to apply to the court for a deferment. The judge said that the two applications for the plaintiff will be collegial. The time for the next session is uncertain.
Some legal professionals analyzed that compared with other intellectual property dispute cases, the decoration of goods is highly arbitrarily and weakly protected, so it is estimated that it is difficult to make judgments in the short term.
Before the Spring Festival this year, Beijing Chaoyang District People’s Court formally accepted Michelin v. Fengshen Tire’s Beijing sales agent and Fengshen Tire Co., Ltd. infringement case. The plaintiff requested that the defendant be ordered to immediately stop the infringement, and the plaintiff should be compensated with an economic loss of 1 million yuan, and apologized in the national newspapers. At present, the parties and the trial is concerned about the progress of the case.
Alloy Pumps,30Mm Times 300Mm Alloy Pump,Abs Handle Matrrial Pump,200G Silver Alloy Pump
SHAOXING KUNLUN IMP AND EXP CO.,LTD , https://www.shaoxingkunlun.com