Pandora Doors suffers from trademark infringement and is awarded a compensation of 100 million yuan!
"Pandora brings peace and security to your home"—this well-known slogan refers to Pandora Safety Doors. Pandora Safety Doors is now a leading brand in China's door industry, and its "Pandora and Logo" trademark has been recognized as a well-known trademark. However, as the brand's reputation continues to grow, Pandora Doors has inevitably faced trademark infringement.
In 2018, Pandora Doors discovered a metal safety door on the market called "Xin Pandora." After investigation and evidence collection, it was found that the company extensively used the identifiers "XINPANPAN," "Xin Pandora High-End Doors," "Xin Pandora High-End Security Doors," "Xin [Company Name] Group," and "Xin [Company Name] Company" in its offline store signs and decorations, product packaging, brochures, exhibitions, and outdoor advertisements. These were used to promote "Xin Pandora" security doors, wooden doors, metal windows and doors, aluminum alloy windows and doors, smart home solutions, and sunrooms, among other products or the company itself.
Pandora Doors subsequently filed a lawsuit against the company in the Jiangsu Provincial Higher People's Court.
The court soon held a hearing on the case. The evidence provided by the plaintiff proved the following:
-
The "Pandora" business name has been continuously producing and selling security doors and other products for over 20 years. The company has a huge scale of operations, with products covering the entire country. Its security door sales and market share have ranked first in the industry for more than two decades, and it enjoys extremely high popularity among consumers, reaching a well-known status.
-
In its use, the company deformed or reduced the size of the character "Xin" in "Xin Pandora," highlighting the "Pandora" characters or directly using the phrase "Pandora Security Doors." It also promoted the company and its products through the internet. These uses are considered trademark uses, and they are similar to the plaintiff's involved series of trademarks in terms of text, phonetic composition, graphics, and pronunciation. They are considered similar marks.
-
The defendant company is highly associated with the plaintiff company in terms of production departments, sales channels, sales venues, target consumers, and functional purposes. This is likely to cause confusion among the relevant public regarding the source of the products or to lead them to mistakenly believe that Xin [Company Name] Company or Gu's Door Factory has an investment or operational connection with the plaintiff company.
In summary, the defendant company, knowing the plaintiff's well-known trademark, failed to fulfill its duty of review and continued to sell the infringing products. It also used the word "Pandora" in its storefront and business cards, which constitutes an infringement of the plaintiff's exclusive right to use the involved series of trademarks. Considering the infringement facts in this case, the defendant is subject to punitive damages.
The court ruled that the defendant company must immediately cease the infringing activities, cancel its website domain, change its business name, and ensure that it does not include the characters "Pandora." It must also compensate the plaintiff company for losses of 100 million yuan and reasonable expenses of 650,000 yuan.
The defendant company was dissatisfied with the judgment and appealed to the Supreme People's Court.
Second Instance
After reviewing the case, the Supreme People's Court held the following views:
-
Xin [Company Name] Company engaged in unfair competition practices, including using the plaintiff company's business name, panda mascot image, false advertising, and commercial disparagement. It should therefore bear civil liability.
-
The purpose of Xin [Company Name] Company's false advertising and commercial disparagement was to take advantage of the plaintiff company's "Pandora" business name and the involved series of trademarks. This was done to deceive and mislead consumers, intentionally cause confusion, enhance its competitive advantage, and harm its competitors.
Therefore, the court concluded that the original trial court's decision to order the defendant to compensate the plaintiff company for losses of 100 million yuan was appropriate.
Ultimately, the Supreme People's Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
Epilogue:
The "Pandora" trademark protection case has become the highest punitive damages case in China. The active application of punitive damages has strengthened the protection of well-known trademarks and famous business names. This undoubtedly demonstrates the country's strong commitment to protecting intellectual property rights, and it has had a wide impact in the industry.
