Introduction to A Case on Whether OEM Would Constitute Infringement in China


(By Luo Yanjie) For the infringement caused by OEM in China, different courts hold different opinions in China, and in this essay you could see a case describe the infringement determination. The determination of trademark infringement should be subjected to whether or not potential consumers would be confused when making their decision to purchase the product. If the potential consumer is not confused by the product, then it should not be considered as an infringement.


Why Nippon Lost Its Lawsuit against Trademark Infringement by Taobao Sellers?


(By Luo Yanjie)In March 2011 the globally well-known paint producer Nippon Paint Co. Ltd. (“Nippon”), discovered Zhanjin Company had set up a shop on, the biggest online market in China, and had been using Nippon trademarks, ads and trade dress concerning Nippon products with no approval or license from it. With no reply from after filing a complaint, Nippon sued Zhanjin and Taobao in court, and yet the complaint was rejected by the judge. Dissatisfied with this result, Nippon made an appeal to the Shanghai No.1 Intermediate People’s Court, who ruled that the adoption of Nippon’s trademark by Zhanjin is for product information display only, and it could lead to no likelihood of confusion among the public. In addition, the court ruled that no commercial interests of the plaintiff would be damaged. Based on these rulings, the alleged trademark infringement claim could not be established, and therefore the original decision was maintained.


An International Trade Dispute with Trademark Parallel Import Involved

By Lear Gong

The author recently handled a lawsuit involving trademark parallel import. The case itself was not complicated: a famous American bedding design company (“US Company”) holds trademark A in both China and Japan. The US Company licensed a Shanghai home furnishing company (“Shanghai Company”) to manufacture and sell products marked with trademark A within the territory of mainland China. A Japanese home furnishing company (“Japanese Company”) offered to import trademark A furniture from China to Japan, but demanded a written license from US Company. With the promise from the Shanghai Company, the parties concluded a sales contract, but the clause on the Shanghai Company’s duty to get a license from US Company was not clear. From the time the contract was concluded until the products were delivered, the Japanese Company always urged the Shanghai Company to present it the certificate of license issued by the US Company, but the Shanghai Company did not reply or present the certificate. The Japanese Company moved to terminate the sales contract based on failure to perform. The Shanghai Company then filed a lawsuit against the Japanese Company demanding that it continue performance of the sales contract.


Could Selling Parallel Imported iPhone 5 be Trademark Infringement in China?

By Luo Yanjie

In recent, Apply unveiled its new device iPhone 5, and that exited Apple fans around the world. Yet, as sad to Apples fans in mainland China, the region is not among the first launching zones.

Due to the arrangement, the retailer from the grey market is eagerly for their new fortune with the new device launch, and some have even made the preorder for the new iPhone by smuggling the Hongkong sold one to mainland China. Then, in addition to the strike back on taxation, could Apple prohibit such selling through the claim of trademark infringement, while considering all the imported ones are the true Apple phones? Here’re our opinions: