Systematic Copycat Infringement Against Century-Old Brand
The brand name "Simmons" is a household word in the mattress industry. Founded in the United States with a century-long history, it has long been synonymous with high-quality spring mattresses. Its high visibility has, however, attracted numerous operators seeking to free-ride on its brand goodwill.
This landmark trademark dispute was concluded on second instance by the Foshan Intermediate People’s Court of Guangdong Province. The court confirmed joint liability for all defendants, revoked the first-instance compensation award of 2 million yuan, and fully upheld the plaintiff’s claim for total damages of 5.15 million yuan.
The plaintiff, Shanghai Simmons Bedding Sales Co., Ltd., holds the exclusive right to register the "SIMMONS" trademark in Chinese mainland. Established in 1870, Simmons invented the world’s first spring mattress.
The defendant Shenzhen Simmons Company was founded in 2018 with no ties to the authentic SIMMONS brand, yet it adopted a well-planned scheme to illegally profit from the well-known trademark.
Three-Step Infringement Scheme
The defendants followed a three-stage tactic: offshore shell company registration, fake domestic authorization, and misleading false promotion.
-
Register an empty offshore entity: The actual controller set up "American SIMMONS GROUP SLEEP TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD." in the British Virgin Islands, a shell company with no physical premises, staff or tax records.
-
Issue fake authorization papers: The offshore shell firm issued false authorization documents claiming the right to license the "SIMMONS" trademark in mainland China and falsely represented itself as the global operator of the brand.
-
Mass counterfeiting and false marketing: The defendants used identical or confusingly similar "SIMMONS" logos on mattresses, promotional materials and storefronts, registered domain names incorporating the trademark, and included "SIMMONS" in their corporate trade names.
They also fabricated a host of false claims in marketing materials, including that the brand dates back to 1870, Empress Dowager Cixi used Simmons mattresses, the founder invented independent springs, and the brand cooperates with dealers across 107 countries — none of which are backed by official historical records.
Faced with litigation, the defendants put forward two defenses:
-
Generic name defense: They argued "Simmons" had become a generic term for spring mattresses and could not be exclusively owned by the plaintiff.
-
Legitimate authorization defense: They claimed their use of the mark was justified by the offshore shell company’s licensing documents.
Severe Malicious Infringement Confirmed
The Foshan Intermediate People’s Court rejected both defenses after full review:
-
The trademark still retains distinctiveness: To qualify as a generic term, a mark must be universally recognized as a product name by the whole public. The plaintiff submitted evidence including over 300 million yuan in advertising investment (2015–2023), industry reports ranking it among China’s top three high-end mattress brands for eight consecutive years, and consumer surveys showing 78% of respondents associate "SIMMONS" exclusively with the authentic brand. The defendants’ use therefore constitutes trademark infringement.
-
Offshore authorization is a sham: The BVI shell company was specially created to facilitate infringement, and its authorization papers are merely a superficial cover for illegal acts with no legal validity.
-
False promotion amounts to unfair competition: Fabricated claims about brand origin, historical anecdotes and global partnerships mislead consumers about the source and reputation of the products.
-
Individual shareholders bear joint liability: Four natural persons coordinated a complete industrial chain covering registration, production, promotion and sales, with shared intent to infringe, making them jointly liable for all damages.
Considering the 8-year duration of infringement, sales covering 23 provinces, repeated violations despite regulatory complaints, and the brand’s market value exceeding 200 million yuan, the court ruled the defendants’ illegal profits far surpassed the claimed compensation, and fully supported the plaintiff’s demand.
Final Second-Instance Judgment
The court ordered all defendants to:
-
Immediately cease all acts infringing the "SIMMONS" registered trademark;
-
Stop false promotional conduct constituting unfair competition;
-
Pay 5 million yuan for economic losses plus 150,000 yuan in reasonable litigation expenses, totaling 5.15 million yuan.
Shenzhen Simmons bedding companies and Foshan furniture firm, together with the four individual shareholders, shall bear joint and several liability for full compensation.
The judgment pierces the corporate veil to hold individual perpetrators accountable, imposing heavy financial penalties and delivering comprehensive relief to the legitimate brand owner.
