Yesterday, Ouhai Court opened a hearing on an unfair competition dispute case. Zhejiang Semir Clothing Company sued Guangzhou Semir Shoes Company for unfair competition.
The case was sued by Zhejiang Semir Clothing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Semi Clothing”) against Guangzhou Semir Shoes Co., Ltd. The company (hereinafter referred to as “Senma Shoes”) and its first-line and offline stores require confirmation that the “Senma”, “Senma” and “Senma” used by “Senma Shoes” and its online and offline stores in commercial activities other than footwear products constitute a violation of ” Semir Apparel’s unfair competition, compensation for economic losses of 4 million yuan and reasonable expenses of 300,000 yuan to stop the infringement, and an announcement to eliminate the impact.
The plaintiff claimed that Semir Group Co., Ltd. established Zhejiang Semir Clothing Co., Ltd. (listed company) on February 5, 2002, and Guangzhou Semir Shoes Co., Ltd. established on January 7, 2009 established. The “Semi” trademark No. 1170715 held by “Semi Clothing” was applied for as early as March 10, 1997, and was transferred from Semir Group Co., Ltd. The “Senma senma” trademark No. 929407 held by “Senma Shoes” was first applied for by a shoe factory in Hebei on April 7, 1995, and was transferred and acquired on June 7, 2015 after many transfers.
, whose behavior constitutes unfair business operations.
The defendant argued that Semir Shoes applied to register the English and Chinese trademark words Semir in 1995, which was a reasonable use of its own trademark rights, and the word Semir was only used in the field of shoemaking. There is no infringement beyond the bounds of use.
The court investigation focused on whether the presence of “Semi” in the company name of “Semi Shoes” constitutes unfair competition. The company uses “Semi” and “Semi” in places other than footwear products. Whether the “Senma” logo constitutes infringement. “Semmer Shoes” emphasized in court that its trademark was registered first in the 25th category of trademarks, which did not constitute unfair competition. “Seima Clothing” repeatedly emphasized the other party’s infringement.
The judge said that both parties registered “clothing” and 2507 groups of “shoes” respectively in the 25th category of goods (the number is the category and group represented in the trademark registration classification table), With the development of “Senma Clothing”, “Senma Clothing” has registered a series of trademarks such as “Senma” and “Senma” in Class 35. And whether the “Semi” logo used by “Semi Shoes” in factories, physical stores and online homepages infringes on the exclusive right of registered trademarks of “Semi Clothing” and constitutes unfair competition. During the trial, which lasted for more than three hours, defense lawyers from both sides launched a series of confrontations.
This case will be pronounced at a later date after a collegial panel discussion. </p
