Chinese
——The plaintiff, Schneider Electric (China) Co., Ltd., filed a dispute over trademark infringement and unfair competition against the defendants: Zhenjiang Schneider Electric Co., Ltd., Schneider Busbar Jiangsu Co., Ltd., Zhenjiang Haoxu Power Technology Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Yijian Construction Group Co., Ltd.
Court's Summary of Findings
Regarding whether the actions in question infringed upon the exclusive rights of the plaintiff, Schneider Electric (China) Company, concerning the three registered trademarks involved, the court's analysis and conclusions are as follows:
On the alleged infringing action 1 (using the “
”“
” logo on the products, product brochures displayed in the 1688 online store, and on the websitewww.zj-schneider.com) :The name of the involved 1688 online store is "Zhenjiang Schneider Electric Co., Ltd." with the seller being the legal representative of the defendant, "Chen Yuehong". The online store also displayed Zhenjiang Schneider Company's business license. Therefore, the court determined that the online store in question was operated by the defendant, Zhenjiang Schneider Electric Company. The allegedly infringing logo "Schneider" is prominently used on the products as well as on the involved online store and website, serving to identify the source of the products, which constitutes trademark use. The allegedly infringing products and tho se associated with the trademarks in question are identical or similar goods. The involved trademarks have a record of being protected as famous trademarks, possessing high recognition and influence, and their use in conjunction with the Chinese names "镇江施耐德电器" (Zhenjiang Schneider Electric) and "施耐德母线" (Schneider Busbar) increases the likelihood of confusion among the relevant public.
On the alleged infringing action 2 (using identifiers such as "施耐德" (Schneider), "镇江施耐德" (Zhenjiang Schneider), "镇江施耐德电器" (Zhenjiang Schneider Electric), "施耐德电器" (Schneider Electric), "施耐德电气" (Schneider Electric), "镇江施耐德母线" (Zhenjiang Schneider Busbar), and "施耐德母线" (Schneider Busbar) in various locations, including products and their quality certificates, the "www.zj-schneider.com" and "suoude.net" websites, WeChat public accounts, WeChat mini-programs, and the 1688 online store):First, the WeChat public account "Zhenjiang Schneider Electric Co., Ltd." indicates that the account is operated by Zhenjiang Schneider Company; the WeChat mini-program has the company's name and phone number listed under "Contact Us," and "About Us" describes Zhenjiang Schneider Company, with the defendant having no objection to the operation of the involved WeChat mini-program and public account. Secondly, regarding whether the use of the alleged infringing identifiers by Zhenjiang Schneider Company and Schneider Busbar Company constitutes trademark use, they argue that the identifiers are a legal use of their business name, thus not constituting an infringement. The court finds that Zhenjiang Schneider Company and Schneider Busbar Company did not properly use their full company name; instead, they prominently used the alleged identifiers on their products, quality certificates, websites "www.zj-schneider.com" and "suoude.net" WeChat public accounts, mini-programs, and the 1688 online store. Notably, the involved 1688 online store explicitly used "Zhenjiang Schneider" under the "Brand" section, which plays a role in identifying the source of the products and constitutes trademark use. Therefore, the defense put forth by Zhenjiang Schneider Company and Schneider Busbar Company does not hold up. The allegedly infringing products are identical or similar to the products authorized for use under the trademarks in question. The primary identifying element in the allegedly infringing actions remains "施耐德" (Schneider), which is similar in composition to the two involved trademarks, leading to a likelihood of confusion among the relevant public.
On the alleged infringing action 3. ……
On the alleged infringing action 4 (using the domain name “zj-schneider.com” and conducting e-commerce transactions related to it): First, according to the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology's ICP/IP domain information filing management system, the website domain “zj-schneider.com” is registered under the name of the defendant, Zhenjiang Schneider Company. Second, the core part of the domain name “zj-schneider.com” is “schneider”, which is identical to the main identifying part “schneider” of the involved trademark G715396 “
”This similarity to the involved trademark constitutes an approximate resemblance. The involved trademark is popular and strongly distinctive; thus, the defendant's registration of a domain name that is similar to the involved trademark is likely to cause confusion and misrecognition among the relevant public. Additionally, the content of the website associated with the involved domain shows that it includes detailed product catalogs and descriptions, along with sections for “feedback” and “contact information,” which can be identified as e-commerce activities conducted through that domain for product transactions. Based on the above reasons, the court concluded that the actions of the defendant, Zhenjiang Schneider Company, in registering and using the domain name “zj-schneider.com” infringed upon the plaintiff's exclusive rights to the involved trademark G715396 “”.
Furthermore, the actions of the defendant, Zhenjiang Schneider Company and Schneider Busbar Company, in registering and using “施耐德” (Schneider) as a business name constitute unfair competition.
Determination of the Calculation Period for Damages:
The plaintiff claims that the period for calculating the infringing profits of the defendants, Zhenjiang Schneider Company and Schneider Busbar Company, should be from 2010 to March 2022. The defendants, Zhenjiang Schneider Company, Schneider Busbar Company, and Chen Yuehong, counter that the plaintiff was already aware of Zhenjiang Schneider Company's business activities long ago and has only now filed a lawsuit, which exceeds the three-year statute of limitations, so they should bear the responsibility themselves.
The court notes that according to Article 18 of the "Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes Involving Trademarks" by the Supreme People's Court, the statute of limitations for lawsuits involving infringement of registered trademark rights is three years, starting from the date the trademark registrant or an interested party recognizes or should recognize that their rights have been infringed upon and the date the infringer becomes liable. If the trademark registrant or interested party exceeds the three-year period to file a lawsuit, but the infringement is ongoing at the time of filing, and within the period of validity of the registered trademark, the People's Court should order the defendant to cease the infringing behavior, and the amount of damages for infringement should be calculated back three years from the date the rights holder filed the lawsuit.
From the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, it is clear that they recognized the infringing actions of Zhenjiang Schneider Company and Schneider Busbar Company by 2016 at the latest. Given that the plaintiff was aware of the defendant's infringing actions by 2016 and only filed the lawsuit in May 2020, this exceeds the three-year statute of limitations; thus, the calculation for damages should only be applied from May 2020 and calculated back for three years.
Regarding the infringing actions of the defendants, Zhenjiang Schneider Company and Schneider Busbar Company, after the plaintiff filed the lawsuit, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff indicates that the infringing actions continued until March 2022, prior to the court hearing of this case. Consequently, the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit was interrupted due to the plaintiff's filing. Therefore, the claims for the infringing actions by the plaintiff against Zhenjiang Schneider Company and Schneider Busbar Company have not exceeded the statute of limitations. Thus, the damages for this case should be calculated from June 2017 to March 2022.
Calculation Basis and Amount of Punitive Damages :
In the evidence obtained by the plaintiff through an investigation order, it is clearly stated that the defendant, Zhenjiang Schneider Company, has annual operating revenue, cost of goods sold, and operating taxes and additional charges. Therefore, the compensation base for this case can be directly determined using the relevant financial report data obtained from the evidence, namely: sales profit = operating revenue - cost of goods sold - operating taxes and additional charges. Thus, the base for punitive damages is calculated based on the sales profit of Zhenjiang Schneider Company from June 2017 to March 2022.
Sales Profit Calculation:
2017: Sales profit is 7,635,097.52 yuan; monthly average profit (7,635,097.52 / 12) × 7 (months) = 4,453,806.89 yuan.
2018: Sales profit is 5,305,357.77 yuan.
2019: Sales profit is 8,155,462.17 yuan; deducting the compensation amount of 300,000 yuan determined by the People's Court of Chancheng District, Foshan City, Guangdong Province, in the civil judgment (2022) Yue 0604 Minchu No. 22598 issued on August 22, 2023, which results in 8,155,462.17 - 300,000 = 7,855,462.17 yuan.
2020: Sales profit is 8,684,354.97 yuan.
2021: Sales profit is 8,865,222.98 yuan.
2022 (Q1): Sales profit is 229,401.4 yuan.
Total: 4,453,806.89 + 5,305,357.77 + 7,855,462.17 + 8,684,354.97 + 8,865,222.98 + 229,401.4 = 35,393,606.18 yuan.
Determination of the Punitive Damage Multiplier: The court finds that the degree of subjective fault and the severity of the infringing actions by Zhenjiang Schneider Company should correspondingly influence the decision. Punitive damage bases and multipliers should be calculated separately, meaning the final compensation amount that the accused infringer is liable for is the sum of the base amount and punitive damages. Therefore, the court determines a multiplier of 2 for calculating punitive damages. Accordingly, in this case, Zhenjiang Schneider Company's total damage compensation amount should be calculated as 35,393,606.18 × 3 = 106,180,818.54 yuan, rounded to 106,180,819 yuan.
Key Points of the Judgment
1. Considerations for Applying Punitive Damages: In applying punitive damages, both subjective "intent" and objective "severity of circumstances" should be assessed. Determining whether intentionality exists should comprehensively consider factors such as the awareness of the plaintiff's trademark and business name’s recognition, whether the defendant intentionally sought to benefit from the plaintiff's goodwill, and if the defendant knowingly infringed upon the plaintiff's intellectual property.
2. Infringement through Business Registration and Product Use: The defendant’s immediate registration and use of the plaintiff’s business name and the display of the business name and accused infringing marks on the main products constitute an infringement of the plaintiff's intellectual property. Furthermore, the defendant lacks its own intellectual property, establishing that the defendant's profits mainly arise from the infringement, which can be confirmed through sales profit calculations. Since sales profits can be clearly identified, there is no need to estimate them using “total operating revenue × industry average profit margin”; instead, they should be directly calculated using “operating revenue - cost of goods sold - operating taxes and additional charges” and punitive damages should be applied based on that.
3. Liability of Shareholders upon Company Dissolution: If shareholders dissolve the company through a simple cancellation without notifying the plaintiff or truthfully informing the company registration authority of the litigation circumstances, and do not fulfill their liquidation obligations while promising to hold responsibility for the company's debts at the time of the company registration cancellation, they should bear joint liability for the full amount of damages.
Judgment Summary
Source: Intellectual Property Treasure
——The plaintiff, Schneider Electric (China) Co., Ltd., filed a dispute over trademark infringement and unfair competition against the defendants: Zhenjiang Schneider Electric Co., Ltd., Schneider Busbar Jiangsu Co., Ltd., Zhenjiang Haoxu Power Technology Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Yijian Construction Group Co., Ltd.
Court's Summary of Findings
Regarding whether the actions in question infringed upon the exclusive rights of the plaintiff, Schneider Electric (China) Company, concerning the three registered trademarks involved, the court's analysis and conclusions are as follows:
On the alleged infringing action 1 (using the “”“” logo on the products, product brochures displayed in the 1688 online store, and on the websitewww.zj-schneider.com) :The name of the involved 1688 online store is "Zhenjiang Schneider Electric Co., Ltd." with the seller being the legal representative of the defendant, "Chen Yuehong". The online store also displayed Zhenjiang Schneider Company's business license. Therefore, the court determined that the online store in question was operated by the defendant, Zhenjiang Schneider Electric Company. The allegedly infringing logo "Schneider" is prominently used on the products as well as on the involved online store and website, serving to identify the source of the products, which constitutes trademark use. The allegedly infringing products and tho se associated with the trademarks in question are identical or similar goods. The involved trademarks have a record of being protected as famous trademarks, possessing high recognition and influence, and their use in conjunction with the Chinese names "镇江施耐德电器" (Zhenjiang Schneider Electric) and "施耐德母线" (Schneider Busbar) increases the likelihood of confusion among the relevant public.
On the alleged infringing action 2 (using identifiers such as "施耐德" (Schneider), "镇江施耐德" (Zhenjiang Schneider), "镇江施耐德电器" (Zhenjiang Schneider Electric), "施耐德电器" (Schneider Electric), "施耐德电气" (Schneider Electric), "镇江施耐德母线" (Zhenjiang Schneider Busbar), and "施耐德母线" (Schneider Busbar) in various locations, including products and their quality certificates, the "www.zj-schneider.com" and "suoude.net" websites, WeChat public accounts, WeChat mini-programs, and the 1688 online store):First, the WeChat public account "Zhenjiang Schneider Electric Co., Ltd." indicates that the account is operated by Zhenjiang Schneider Company; the WeChat mini-program has the company's name and phone number listed under "Contact Us," and "About Us" describes Zhenjiang Schneider Company, with the defendant having no objection to the operation of the involved WeChat mini-program and public account. Secondly, regarding whether the use of the alleged infringing identifiers by Zhenjiang Schneider Company and Schneider Busbar Company constitutes trademark use, they argue that the identifiers are a legal use of their business name, thus not constituting an infringement. The court finds that Zhenjiang Schneider Company and Schneider Busbar Company did not properly use their full company name; instead, they prominently used the alleged identifiers on their products, quality certificates, websites "www.zj-schneider.com" and "suoude.net" WeChat public accounts, mini-programs, and the 1688 online store. Notably, the involved 1688 online store explicitly used "Zhenjiang Schneider" under the "Brand" section, which plays a role in identifying the source of the products and constitutes trademark use. Therefore, the defense put forth by Zhenjiang Schneider Company and Schneider Busbar Company does not hold up. The allegedly infringing products are identical or similar to the products authorized for use under the trademarks in question. The primary identifying element in the allegedly infringing actions remains "施耐德" (Schneider), which is similar in composition to the two involved trademarks, leading to a likelihood of confusion among the relevant public.
On the alleged infringing action 3. ……
On the alleged infringing action 4 (using the domain name “zj-schneider.com” and conducting e-commerce transactions related to it): First, according to the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology's ICP/IP domain information filing management system, the website domain “zj-schneider.com” is registered under the name of the defendant, Zhenjiang Schneider Company. Second, the core part of the domain name “zj-schneider.com” is “schneider”, which is identical to the main identifying part “schneider” of the involved trademark G715396 “”This similarity to the involved trademark constitutes an approximate resemblance. The involved trademark is popular and strongly distinctive; thus, the defendant's registration of a domain name that is similar to the involved trademark is likely to cause confusion and misrecognition among the relevant public. Additionally, the content of the website associated with the involved domain shows that it includes detailed product catalogs and descriptions, along with sections for “feedback” and “contact information,” which can be identified as e-commerce activities conducted through that domain for product transactions. Based on the above reasons, the court concluded that the actions of the defendant, Zhenjiang Schneider Company, in registering and using the domain name “zj-schneider.com” infringed upon the plaintiff's exclusive rights to the involved trademark G715396 “”.
Furthermore, the actions of the defendant, Zhenjiang Schneider Company and Schneider Busbar Company, in registering and using “施耐德” (Schneider) as a business name constitute unfair competition.
Determination of the Calculation Period for Damages:
The plaintiff claims that the period for calculating the infringing profits of the defendants, Zhenjiang Schneider Company and Schneider Busbar Company, should be from 2010 to March 2022. The defendants, Zhenjiang Schneider Company, Schneider Busbar Company, and Chen Yuehong, counter that the plaintiff was already aware of Zhenjiang Schneider Company's business activities long ago and has only now filed a lawsuit, which exceeds the three-year statute of limitations, so they should bear the responsibility themselves.
The court notes that according to Article 18 of the "Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes Involving Trademarks" by the Supreme People's Court, the statute of limitations for lawsuits involving infringement of registered trademark rights is three years, starting from the date the trademark registrant or an interested party recognizes or should recognize that their rights have been infringed upon and the date the infringer becomes liable. If the trademark registrant or interested party exceeds the three-year period to file a lawsuit, but the infringement is ongoing at the time of filing, and within the period of validity of the registered trademark, the People's Court should order the defendant to cease the infringing behavior, and the amount of damages for infringement should be calculated back three years from the date the rights holder filed the lawsuit.
From the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, it is clear that they recognized the infringing actions of Zhenjiang Schneider Company and Schneider Busbar Company by 2016 at the latest. Given that the plaintiff was aware of the defendant's infringing actions by 2016 and only filed the lawsuit in May 2020, this exceeds the three-year statute of limitations; thus, the calculation for damages should only be applied from May 2020 and calculated back for three years.
Regarding the infringing actions of the defendants, Zhenjiang Schneider Company and Schneider Busbar Company, after the plaintiff filed the lawsuit, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff indicates that the infringing actions continued until March 2022, prior to the court hearing of this case. Consequently, the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit was interrupted due to the plaintiff's filing. Therefore, the claims for the infringing actions by the plaintiff against Zhenjiang Schneider Company and Schneider Busbar Company have not exceeded the statute of limitations. Thus, the damages for this case should be calculated from June 2017 to March 2022.
Calculation Basis and Amount of Punitive Damages :
In the evidence obtained by the plaintiff through an investigation order, it is clearly stated that the defendant, Zhenjiang Schneider Company, has annual operating revenue, cost of goods sold, and operating taxes and additional charges. Therefore, the compensation base for this case can be directly determined using the relevant financial report data obtained from the evidence, namely: sales profit = operating revenue - cost of goods sold - operating taxes and additional charges. Thus, the base for punitive damages is calculated based on the sales profit of Zhenjiang Schneider Company from June 2017 to March 2022.
Sales Profit Calculation:
2017: Sales profit is 7,635,097.52 yuan; monthly average profit (7,635,097.52 / 12) × 7 (months) = 4,453,806.89 yuan.
2018: Sales profit is 5,305,357.77 yuan.
2019: Sales profit is 8,155,462.17 yuan; deducting the compensation amount of 300,000 yuan determined by the People's Court of Chancheng District, Foshan City, Guangdong Province, in the civil judgment (2022) Yue 0604 Minchu No. 22598 issued on August 22, 2023, which results in 8,155,462.17 - 300,000 = 7,855,462.17 yuan.
2020: Sales profit is 8,684,354.97 yuan.
2021: Sales profit is 8,865,222.98 yuan.
2022 (Q1): Sales profit is 229,401.4 yuan.
Total: 4,453,806.89 + 5,305,357.77 + 7,855,462.17 + 8,684,354.97 + 8,865,222.98 + 229,401.4 = 35,393,606.18 yuan.
Determination of the Punitive Damage Multiplier: The court finds that the degree of subjective fault and the severity of the infringing actions by Zhenjiang Schneider Company should correspondingly influence the decision. Punitive damage bases and multipliers should be calculated separately, meaning the final compensation amount that the accused infringer is liable for is the sum of the base amount and punitive damages. Therefore, the court determines a multiplier of 2 for calculating punitive damages. Accordingly, in this case, Zhenjiang Schneider Company's total damage compensation amount should be calculated as 35,393,606.18 × 3 = 106,180,818.54 yuan, rounded to 106,180,819 yuan.
Key Points of the Judgment
1. Considerations for Applying Punitive Damages: In applying punitive damages, both subjective "intent" and objective "severity of circumstances" should be assessed. Determining whether intentionality exists should comprehensively consider factors such as the awareness of the plaintiff's trademark and business name’s recognition, whether the defendant intentionally sought to benefit from the plaintiff's goodwill, and if the defendant knowingly infringed upon the plaintiff's intellectual property.
2. Infringement through Business Registration and Product Use: The defendant’s immediate registration and use of the plaintiff’s business name and the display of the business name and accused infringing marks on the main products constitute an infringement of the plaintiff's intellectual property. Furthermore, the defendant lacks its own intellectual property, establishing that the defendant's profits mainly arise from the infringement, which can be confirmed through sales profit calculations. Since sales profits can be clearly identified, there is no need to estimate them using “total operating revenue × industry average profit margin”; instead, they should be directly calculated using “operating revenue - cost of goods sold - operating taxes and additional charges” and punitive damages should be applied based on that.
3. Liability of Shareholders upon Company Dissolution: If shareholders dissolve the company through a simple cancellation without notifying the plaintiff or truthfully informing the company registration authority of the litigation circumstances, and do not fulfill their liquidation obligations while promising to hold responsibility for the company's debts at the time of the company registration cancellation, they should bear joint liability for the full amount of damages.
Judgment Summary
Source: Intellectual Property Treasure
