Recently, the Higher People’s Court of Fujian Province issued a second-instance judgment in a trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute involving a well-known footwear brand, ordering three defendants to jointly pay 600,000 yuan in compensation for economic losses and reasonable rights-protection expenses.
In this case, the second-instance court ruled that the product names and corresponding trade dress of the "1460" and "1461" Martin boots owned by AirWair International Ltd. constituted distinctive product names and trade dress with certain influence under the law.
The defendants — Putian Yongmou Company, Xiamen Beimou Company, and their joint legal representative Xu Mou — used nearly identical or highly similar names and trade dress for the two boot models in online stores, and attempted to register trademarks identical or similar to the plaintiff’s "Dr.Martens" and "AirWair" brands.
The court found these acts constituted unfair competition, and the three defendants were held jointly and severally liable for 600,000 yuan in compensation.
Well-Known Brand Targeted by "Brand Free-Riding"
Martin boots were first invented by German shoemaker Klaus Märtens. The "Dr.Martens" brand, initially positioned as work boots, has gradually become a fashion icon due to its durability and unique appearance. The 1460 and 1461 models involved in this case are the brand’s most representative products, manufactured and sold by AirWair International Ltd.
During operation, AirWair discovered that the online store operated by Putian Yongmou Company not only used the "Karin.Martens" mark (similar to "Dr.Martens") but also fully copied the names and trade dress of the boots in question, and even directly used the exact same design as the "Dr.Martens AirWair" figurative trademark. Notably, the three defendants filed a large number of trademark applications identical or highly similar to the "Dr.Martens" and "AirWair" series marks.
AirWair sued the three defendants in the first-instance court, claiming 2,000,000 yuan in compensation.
At trial, AirWair argued that through years of operation and promotion, the names and trade dress of the boots had gained high market popularity and could identify the source of goods. As industry peers, the three defendants clearly knew this fact. In addition, the 36 trademark applications filed by the defendants that were identical or similar to AirWair’s marks — most of which had been invalidated or rejected — proved obvious subjective infringement intent, constituting trademark infringement and unfair competition.
Defense: No Actual Sales; Use Before Trademark Invalidation Was Lawful
The three defendants argued that they did not actually produce or sell products identical or similar to the boot models in question. The "Karin.Martens" mark they used had not been officially invalidated at the time of evidence collection, so the use was not unlawful. They also claimed that the evidence failed to prove the names and trade dress had reached "certain popularity".
First Instance: Trade Dress and Name Claims Rejected; ¥450,000 Compensation
The first-instance court held that the "Karin.Martens" mark had been invalidated, and was overall similar to "Dr.Martens", likely to cause confusion among ordinary consumers. The defendants’ use of the mark and the identical "Dr.Martens AirWair" design infringed AirWair’s exclusive right to use registered trademarks.
The court also found that the defendants’ squatting of 36 trademarks similar to AirWair’s and other brands — far beyond normal business needs — forced the right holder to seek invalidation, constituting unfair competition prohibited by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
However, the first-instance court rejected AirWair’s claim that the names and trade dress constituted "distinctive product names and trade dress with certain influence". It ruled that "Martin boots" had become a generic term for a type of footwear, and ordinary consumers would not necessarily associate "1460" or "1461" and their trade dress with AirWair. The court awarded 450,000 yuan in compensation.
Second Instance Reversal: Fujian High Court Redefines Protection Scope
AirWair appealed to the Fujian High Court, arguing that it never claimed rights in the term "Martin boots" alone. The first-instance court’s ruling that "Martin boots" was a generic term violated the "no trial without claim" principle and conflicted with previous administrative and civil rulings.
After trial, the Fujian High Court ruled on the protectability of the product names and trade dress:
-
Evidence showed that after long-term use, the numbers "1460" and "1461" had acquired distinctiveness identifying the source of goods among the relevant public.
-
The names were derived from the launch dates of the two boot models. With 10,000 possible four-digit combinations, AirWair’s selection of "1460" and "1461" was inherently distinctive.
The court confirmed the product names and trade dress were entitled to legal protection, increased the compensation to 600,000 yuan in the second-instance judgment.
Significance of the Case
The second-instance judgment precisely defines the protection scope of "distinctive product names and trade dress with certain influence". It reflects the Chinese courts’ judicial attitude of equally protecting the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese and foreign right holders, and sets a specific, positive example for building a market-oriented, law-based and international business environment.
