Gifts / Sports & Toys

In today’s society, innovation is the first driving force leading social development. Protecting related intellectual property rights is the source of innovation and development. However, some people and companies have used their brains that should have been used in creative innovation. In terms of "shanzhai" improper conduct, the Guangdong Higher People's Court recently issued a final judgment on the case of "Lego" against "Lepin" for trademark infringement and unfair competition.

The "Lego" company specializing in selling children's toy building blocks can be said to be a household name, but what company is behind this "Lepin" trademark?

1:1 Plagiarizing the outer packaging to make it difficult to distinguish between the fake and the real

It starts with an accidental discovery in the daily business activities of the veteran toy company "Lego". "LEGO" company found that there are some toys with "LEPIN" ("LEPIN" "CHIMO") and other logos on the market, which are very similar to the registered trademarks of "LEGO" ("LEGO" "CHIMA") on its products. .

Lego believes that these products on the market, whether from the outer packaging box or the building blocks as a whole, have exactly the same or corresponding relationship with the company's corresponding products of the same model. It is easy for the public to mistake the "Lepin" product as Lego. The series of products may have some kind of connection. When consumers mistakenly believe that Lego products are genuine Lego blocks, they have huge doubts about the quality and user experience of Lego products, which will have a huge negative impact on Lego's goodwill.

Shi Qing, the senior legal counsel of the Lego Group, told reporters: “We believe that the other party constitutes a trademark infringement. At the same time, the packaging and decoration of Lepin’s products are completely plagiarized and imitated the packaging and decoration of Lego products, thus constituting unfair competition.”

In September 2016, Lego Company sued four suspected infringing companies led by Meizhi, including Lepin’s manufacturers and distributors, to the court, requesting the court to confirm the facts of infringement, and requesting the other party to stop the infringement and compensate 30 million yuan.

On November 9, 2017, the case was heard at the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court in the first instance.

During the trial, the four defendants, including Meizhi Company, first denied the existence of trademark infringement. They argued that “Lego” is the pronunciation of the Latin alphabet, and “Lepin” is the Chinese pinyin. Therefore, “Lepin” and “LEPIN” are the same as "Lego" and "LEGO" are different in terms of constituent factors, expressions, pronunciation, and meaning.

The defendant Le Zhipin Company’s litigation agent stated that: LEGO and LEPIN are not the same or similar, and there is a big difference between the two.

In this regard, the plaintiff Lego listed a large amount of evidence to prove the existence of the infringement facts.

The litigation agent of the plaintiff Lego Company stated: "Lego", "LEGO" and other logos enjoy trademark rights.

In addition, the plaintiff provided 83 pieces of evidence related to the case to the court three times, proving that the defendant committed the infringement.

After hearing the case, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court made a first-instance judgment in accordance with the law. The court held that the logos used by the four defendants on the sued toy products were sufficient to cause confusion and misunderstanding by the relevant public, and the relevant acts infringed the exclusive right to use Lego's registered trademark. And constitutes unfair competition, the Lego company must be compensated for economic losses of 3 million yuan.

Regarding this result, both the plaintiff and the defendant expressed dissatisfaction and filed an appeal to the Guangdong Higher People's Court.

According to Judge Xiao Haitang of the Guangdong Higher People’s Court, the judgment of the first instance determined that some trademarks constituted infringement, mainly Lepin’s English trademark constituted infringement, but did not determine that the Chinese trademark of “Lepin” constituted infringement, and the amount of compensation was awarded. 3 million yuan. After the judgment of the first instance, both parties were dissatisfied. The plaintiff filed an appeal because they believed that all infringements had not been stopped. The defendant also filed an appeal because they believed their actions did not constitute infringement.

The judge of the second instance re-examined the case and summarized the focus of the case into two points:

First, whether the determination that constitutes a trademark infringement is established;

Second, if the infringement is established, how much compensation is reasonable?

Judge Xiao Haitang told reporters: "Regarding the judgment of trademark infringement, it is mainly judged from ordinary consumers using ordinary attention to judge whether it will constitute confusion and misunderstanding. On this basis, it is also necessary to consider the plaintiff’s own The trademark has been recognized as a well-known trademark many times and has a very high reputation. Looking at the overall situation, if it is seen by the relevant public in the general market, the first thing that comes to mind is the Lego logo, or "Lepin". The product has something to do with Lego."

The judge believes that companies such as Meizhi use the "Lepin" Chinese and English series of logos, which are very similar to the "Lego" series of logos in terms of color combination, form of expression, and overall visual effects, which can easily lead to confusion among the public, regardless of whether it is an English logo. It is also a Chinese logo, which constitutes infringement. So, how to determine the amount of compensation for the next focus issue?

Sales of "cottage" toys reached hundreds of millions

"On the one hand, we have referenced the relevant information of the related criminal case to find out the scale of the relevant product being sued and the amount involved. On the other hand, we are also concerned about the same plaintiff and defendant. In addition to this case, there is also a copyright infringement dispute. This requires consideration of the proportion of the trademark itself in the profit of infringement to determine the amount of the case more reasonably and avoid repeated compensation." Judge Xiao Haitang told reporters.

After the judge's understanding, the relevant facts behind the problem gradually surfaced, and the standard for the amount of compensation is basically clear.

Judge Xiao Haitang told reporters that according to the relevant criminal cases, the court found out the scale of the products involved and the amount involved. The most conservative inference is that at least 500 million in sales. According to the audit report of Meizhi Company, it can be estimated that the illegal profit has reached 160 million yuan, so it can be determined that the profit of the entire infringement is 160 million yuan.

In the course of the trial, the court found that the companies such as Meizhi, from applying for trademarks, copying products, mass production to sales promotion, itself is an organized, designed, and scaled serious infringement. Such acts must be severely punished. .