新百倫在華打贏商標(biāo)侵權(quán)訴訟
新百倫(New Balance)表示，中國一家法院命令三家被告支付高達(dá)150萬美元的損害賠償金，因?yàn)樗鼈兂u了該美國鞋類品牌的斜體“N”標(biāo)識(shí)。這是一場(chǎng)罕見的商標(biāo)案勝利。
A court in the eastern city of Suzhou ruled last week that the defendants had infringed New Balance’s “unique decoration rights”, and ordered them to stop producing or selling shoes with variations of the logo.
華東城市蘇州的一個(gè)法院上周裁定這些被告侵犯了新百倫獨(dú)特的裝飾權(quán)，并勒令它們停止生產(chǎn)或銷售使用上述標(biāo)識(shí)變體的鞋類。
One of the defendants was a company known in English as New Boom, according to the state-run China Intellectual Property Magazine, which first reported the verdict on Monday.
根據(jù)周一率先報(bào)道這一裁決結(jié)果的國營的《中國知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)雜志》，其中一家被告的英文公司名為New Boom。
The ruling comes as the US pressures Beijing to take more action on suspected intellectual property theft by Chinese companies, though administration officials have complained more about enforced technology transfer arrangements than trademark infringements.
這項(xiàng)裁決出爐之際，美國正施壓北京對(duì)中國企業(yè)疑似竊取知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的行為采取更多行動(dòng)，盡管相比商標(biāo)侵權(quán)，特朗普政府官員抱怨更多的是強(qiáng)制性的技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓安排。
Last year former basketball player Michael Jordan successfully stopped a Chinese sportswear company from using a translation of his surname on their apparel, in what was seen as a landmark verdict because it overturned the general precedent in China that whoever registers a trademark first has a right to it.
去年，前籃球運(yùn)動(dòng)員邁克爾•喬丹(Michael Jordan)成功阻止了一家中國運(yùn)動(dòng)服裝企業(yè)在其服裝上使用他的姓氏的中文翻譯，該案被視為一項(xiàng)里程碑式的裁決，因?yàn)樗品酥袊囊话阆壤?，即最先注?cè)商標(biāo)的人擁有商標(biāo)權(quán)。
Previously, companies from Apple to Heineken had lost trademark battles in China over the issue. Apple was forced in 2012 to pay $60m to a local company that had registered the iPad name after a court rejected the US tech group’s right to the trademark.
以往，從蘋果(Apple)到喜力啤酒(Heineken)的多家西方公司在這個(gè)問題上輸?shù)粼谥袊纳虡?biāo)戰(zhàn)。蘋果曾在2012年被迫向一家搶先注冊(cè)了iPad名稱的本土企業(yè)支付6000萬美元，此前中國法庭拒絕承認(rèn)這家美國科技集團(tuán)的商標(biāo)權(quán)。
The New Balance verdict differed from Mr Jordan’s case because it related to rights to a logo rather than a name, and was made under Chinese anti-competition law which mandates protection for product decoration if it is unique and well-known.
新百倫的裁決與喬丹案的不同之處在于，它涉及一個(gè)公司標(biāo)識(shí)，而不是名字，而且該裁決是根據(jù)中國的反不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭法做出的;該法要求保護(hù)獨(dú)特且知名的產(chǎn)品裝飾。
Angel Shi from New Balance said foreign brands owners in China face “increasingly aggressive look-like infringements on a scale we don’t see in other major markets” and that winning the case “has given us confidence to adapt to a more proactive brand protection strategy in China”.
新百倫的Angel Shi表示，境外品牌擁有者在中國面臨“越來越肆無忌憚的外觀侵權(quán)，其規(guī)模是我們?cè)谄渌饕袌?chǎng)聞所未聞的”，該案的勝訴“使我們有信心在中國執(zhí)行一種更為主動(dòng)積極的品牌保護(hù)戰(zhàn)略”。
The verdict does not extend to trainer companies with similar names: New Balance lost a case against Chinese sports shoe company New Barlun last year, when a court ruled there was no trademark infringement by the Chinese company. The US company was forced to pay a fine of Rmb5m ($750,000).
這項(xiàng)裁決并不延伸至名稱相似的運(yùn)動(dòng)鞋企業(yè)：去年，新百倫在針對(duì)中國運(yùn)動(dòng)鞋公司紐巴侖(New Barlun)的訴訟中敗訴，法庭裁決認(rèn)定，這家中國企業(yè)并未侵犯商標(biāo)權(quán)。新百倫被迫支付500萬元人民幣(合75萬美元)的罰款。
China is the world’s second-largest sportswear market. Overseas brands such as Nike and Adidas have been increasing sales by double digits in recent quarters as more Chinese people take up running and other sports.
中國是世界第二大運(yùn)動(dòng)服裝市場(chǎng)。隨著越來越多的中國人開始從事跑步和其他運(yùn)動(dòng)，耐克(Nike)和阿迪達(dá)斯(Adidas)等海外品牌在最近幾個(gè)季度實(shí)現(xiàn)了兩位數(shù)的銷售增長。
New Balance had 1.8 per cent of the Chinese footwear market in 2016, up from 0.4 per cent in 2011, trailing Nike and Adidas who had 7.8 and 7 per cent respectively, according to consultancy Euromonitor.
據(jù)咨詢公司歐睿(Euromonitor)介紹，新百倫在2016年擁有中國鞋類市場(chǎng)1.8%的份額，高于2011年的0.4%，但比不上耐克(7.8%)和阿迪達(dá)斯(7%)。
