Case 2: "Renmou" Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Case

Dispute over Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition between Renmou Land (Chengdu) Co., Ltd., HeNan Renmou Real Estate Co., Ltd., Nanjing Renmou Enterprise Management Co., Ltd., Singapore Renmou Holdings Co., Ltd., and Lanzhou Renmou Real Estate Co., Ltd

Second instance: Supreme People's Court (2023) Supreme Court Civil Final No. 418

【 Expert Review 】

Du Ying, Director, Professor, and Doctoral Supervisor of the Intellectual Property Research Center at Central University of Finance and Economics

Functionally speaking, the role of judicial rulings is both individualized and has a demonstrative effect beyond individual cases. Individuality is reflected in the role of resolving disputes by determining the rights and obligations between the parties involved in the case; The demonstration effect is reflected in further clarifying the application of the law, providing judicial ideas for similar or similar cases, and providing guidance for market related entities on how to behave. The problem to be solved by the judgment in this case is a very common phenomenon in the current market practice in China - market confusion behavior. Some market confusion behaviors are carried out based on narrow trademarks, some extend to other commercial signs beyond narrow trademarks, such as packaging, decoration, brand name, domain name, etc., and some even use advertising endorsements that imply specific relationships to achieve. Of course, more often than not, it is similar to the case of cross reliance on various commercial signs to carry out market confusion behaviors, and the identification of rules and legal application in the case judgment are relatively complex. In terms of legal application, this case has conducted a detailed and clear analysis of the composition of trademark infringement and unfair competition. The judgment uses a comprehensive analysis method of multiple factors to determine whether there is a possibility of confusion among the relevant public, and then forms a judgment on whether it constitutes trademark infringement; In reasoning, the judgment not only evaluates various factors such as the degree of similarity between goods/services, trademark awareness and distinctiveness, subjective state of the accused infringer, and evidence of actual confusion, but also comprehensively measures the judgment of each factor. In the judgment of unfair competition behavior, the judgment accurately grasped the subjective malicious state of the accused infringer, strengthened the analysis of the impropriety of the accused infringement behavior, and combined with the popularity of the trademark and trade name of the right holder to demonstrate the obligation of the accused infringer to reasonably avoid, effectively supporting the conclusion that the accused infringer bears the responsibility for unfair competition. The judgment is based on the protection of trademark rights and names under the Trademark Law and the Anti Unfair Competition Law, accurately grasping the legal system arrangements of the two laws in preventing market confusion, which are both homologous and oriented towards different behaviors. It realizes the scientific connection between the Anti Unfair Competition Law and the Trademark Law, and is conducive to fully exerting the due role of the two laws in jointly preventing market confusion.

Judicial judgments need to penetrate the complex manifestations of market behavior, recognize the essence of behavior from a legal perspective, and conduct scientific legal evaluations. This not only helps clarify the composition of legal application, but also guides market entities on how to conduct business activities in accordance with the law at a deeper level, thereby maintaining an effective competitive order and creating a good business environment. This is also the typical and exemplary significance of the judgment in this case.