Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition to Starbucks

Release Time:2009/5/6 14:01:35            【Font-size:Big Middle Small】

【Case Briefing】

The plaintiff, Starbucks Corporation, registered with Chinese industrial and commercial authority the trademark of Starbucks and pertinent images respectively in 1996 and 1997(in trademark category 30 and 42). In 2000, Starbucks Corporation registered as a further step the Chinese version of Starbucks, “星巴克”, with the relative authority (in trademark category 30 and 42). The additional plaintiff, Shanghai Uni-President Starbucks Coffee Ltd, was then licensed by Starbucks Corporation for the use of the abovementioned trademark. The defendant café restaurant company was incorporated in Shanghai in 2000 and named itself after “星巴克” in Chinese, and then set up one branch on Nanjing Road in 2003. The defendant company and its branch were claimed to have, in the course of operation, used the trademark and images the plaintiff registered in an unchanged or similar form on such objects including mobile lamp boxes, lamp boxes, seat boards, coffee menus, invoice, receipts and name cards.

【Result of Trial】

It was decided by court that the trademarks of Starbucks and“星巴克” the plaintiff registered under category 42 are reputed trademarks. The fact that the defendants named after “星巴克” and used in the course of operation the trademarks of Starbucks and “星巴克” as well as other pertinent images to be printed over coffee cups has infringed the right of Starbucks Corporation to the exclusive use of trademark, and at the same time inflicted unfair competition.

Verdict: The defendants shall stop the infringement to the Starbucks trademark and call an end to the unfair competition. The defendants shall change their names. The defendants shall be held jointly liable for the economic compensation to the plaintiff in amount of RMB 500,000 and shall make public apology to the plaintiff on Xin Min Evening News.

【Case Analysis】

It was the first time that a reputed trademark was recognized by a local court in the first instance verdict. The defendants were called to change names and held liable, using the applicable statutory indemnity, for an economic compensation to the plaintiff of RMB 500,000. The legal right of the plaintiff was powerfully protected, which indicated a fair protection principle in respect of intellectual property to both local foreign right owners on Chinese territories.

 

                                                                          (source: Shanghai IP Administration)

 

Release Time：2009/5/6 14:01:35[ Print ]