In recent years, latex mattresses, latex pillows, and other latex products have been selling very well in the Chinese market. They are deeply loved by consumers for their comfortable fit.

The “Dunlop” brand is a famous one in the latex products industry. Originating from the UK, it registered its trademark in China in May 1987 for use in mattresses, pillows, and similar products. Currently, the UK has authorized Dunlop Furniture (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. to have the exclusive right to use the brand in China.

Recently, a trademark infringement case involving the “Dunlop” brand attracted 630,000 netizens to watch online and caused a sensation in the entire latex industry. The case ultimately resulted in a 6 million yuan economic compensation award.

Cause of the Case

The plaintiff in this case was Dunlop Furniture (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. As the authorized holder of the “Dunlop” and “Dunlopillo” trademarks, the company discovered that other products named “Dunlop” were being sold in the market. Upon investigation, it was found that the products were being sold by Jiangsu Taralay Company. After gathering evidence, the company filed a lawsuit against Jiangsu Taralay Company in the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court, claiming 6 million yuan in economic compensation for the losses.

Initial Infringement

However, according to research by Guangzhou Sailixun Litigation Database, this trademark infringement case actually dates back a long time.

As early as 2012, Dunlop Shenzhen Company discovered that Foshan Dunlop Pure Sleep Furniture Factory and Foshan Dunlop Bedding Co., Ltd. were selling infringing products. Since the legal representatives of the two companies were the same person, the company sued these two companies and their legal representative, Mr. Zhang, in the Futian District People's Court of Shenzhen, claiming 500,000 yuan in economic compensation.

After investigation and trial by the Futian Court, it was ultimately determined that the defendants had indeed infringed on the plaintiff's trademark rights. The court ruled that the defendant companies should compensate the plaintiff company with 200,000 yuan in economic damages.

Both parties were dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment and appealed to the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court.

After the second-instance review, it was confirmed that the findings and judgment of the first instance were appropriate, and the original judgment was upheld.

Subsequent Infringement

It was thought that the matter had come to an end, but unexpectedly, in 2014, Zhang, who had previously lost a trademark infringement case, registered Jiangsu Taralay Company again. He also collaborated with several other individuals to register a company name containing the word “Dunlop” and used “Dunlop” for publicity. They produced counterfeit “Dunlop” mattresses and other products and opened physical stores under the “Dunlop” name.

As a result, Dunlop Shenzhen Company once again sued Jiangsu Taralay Company and the other companies with names containing “Dunlop” in the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court. The company claimed punitive damages and sought 6 million yuan in economic compensation for the losses.

The first-instance judgment by the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court determined that Taralay Company had a clear malicious intent in the infringement, constituting trademark infringement and unfair competition. The court fully supported the plaintiff's claims.

Taralay Company and the other defendants were dissatisfied with this judgment and appealed to the Guangdong Provincial High Court.

Final Resolution

The second-instance judgment by the Guangdong High Court held that Dunlop's involved trademarks, after long-term use and publicity, had gained a high degree of fame in mattress products. The infringing marks were identical or similar to the involved trademarks, which could easily cause confusion and infringed upon Dunlop's registered trademark rights.

The defendant companies, in implementing the infringing acts, cooperated with each other, constituting joint infringement. Their malicious intent was evident, and the circumstances were severe. Therefore, they were ordered to provide full compensation.

With this, the long-standing continuous infringement case was finally brought to a close.