There are various forms of trademarks, with the most common being word trademarks, graphic trademarks, letter trademarks, number trademarks, and combination trademarks consisting of two or more of these elements. Less common are three-dimensional marks and color combination trademarks. The examination and recognition of these special trademarks have stricter standards, and it is more difficult to determine whether there is infringement in terms of trademark protection. Recently, a trademark infringement case involving a color and graphic combination trademark has attracted market attention.
The plaintiff is a Swedish company, mainly engaged in the production of sealing module products. It has registered the blue-black color combination trademark No. 11945216 in our country. This trademark is composed of blue and black, and according to the trademark description, blue and black are used in the form of concentric circles on the designated products, with the black circle located at the center, surrounded by a blue frame. The plaintiff found that another Shanghai company, which also produces sealing module products, had used the same concentric circle form with a black circle at the center and a blue frame around it in the product appearance on its website and exhibition product manuals. Therefore, the plaintiff sued the company in the Yangpu Court of Shanghai on the grounds of infringing its exclusive right to use the trademark, demanding that the defendant immediately stop the infringing act and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 500,000 yuan.
During the trial, the defendant company argued that its establishment and the use of the blue-black color on its products both predated the registration of the plaintiff's color trademark, and there were differences in the specific color codes, so it did not infringe the plaintiff's exclusive right to use the trademark.
The plaintiff, however, presented evidence to refute this, proving that before the defendant company was established, its company had already used the blue-black color combination mark on sealing module products, and the mark had gained a certain influence in the industry. Although the involved trademark was not registered at that time, the plaintiff had invested a lot of manpower and material resources in operating the trademark and had carried out continuous publicity and promotion, so the defendant company could not constitute "prior use."
After the trial, the court held that:
1. Compared with traditional trademarks, since products themselves have certain colors to highlight their decorative and promotional functions, and color combination trademarks may change in shape due to different ways of use, ordinary consumers usually find it difficult to regard colors as an important identifying feature of products. Therefore, the main basis for judgment is the general attention of consumers, taking into account the differences in the colors used, the arrangement and combination methods, the ways of use, and the overall visual effect.
2. The plaintiff's evidence showed that after years of continuous publicity and promotion, the blue-black color combination mark had gained a certain influence in the industry. As a practitioner in the same industry, the defendant should have reasonably avoided it to eliminate potential infringement risks.
In conclusion, the defendant's actions did indeed infringe the plaintiff's exclusive right to use the trademark, and the court ruled to compensate the plaintiff for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 500,000 yuan.
The defendant company was dissatisfied with this judgment and appealed, but the final judgment of the second-instance court was to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.
Summary:
This trademark case is not only about the special trademark of color and pattern combination, but also the plaintiff did not register and protect the trademark in time. From the basis of the court's judgment, it can be seen that the focus of the case is based on the general attention of consumers. In such cases involving trademark infringement, whether consumers are confused and misrecognized will be the key point. If there is a fair and rigorous consumer market research report to prove the real situation of whether consumers are confused and misrecognized, and use it as supplementary evidence, it will increase the chances of winning.
