"Levis" brand jeans and clothing operator v. Company B et al.

  Case Analysis

American "Levis" brand jeans and clothing operator v. Company B et al.

美国李维斯公司起诉商标侵权纠纷案

Docket No.: 15648, first instance (初), civil case (民), (2020) Pudong New District People's Court of Shanghai Municipality (沪0115)

一审案号：（2020）沪0115民初15648号

Basic Facts

案情介绍

Plaintiff：AMERICAN “LEVIS” BRAND JEANS AND CLOTHING OPERATOR

Defendants：COMPANY B and COMPANY C

原告：美国“Levis”牛仔裤品牌服装运营商

被告：乙公司和丙公司

The Plaintiff, Company A, is an American "Levis" brand jeans and clothing operator which has registered series of trademarks in China, including “” Registered Trademark No. 2023725, in respect of clothing, belts, wallets and other goods. The Plaintiff claimed that as the Defendant I, Company B, used the trademark in dispute on the jeans produced by it without authorization and the Defendant II, Company C, sold them online, they infringed the Plaintiff's exclusive right to use registered trademark. So the Plaintiff sued to the court, requesting to order the two Defendants to stop the infringement and compensate for the economic losses and the reasonable expenses incurred in right protection in total of RMB 200,000.

原告甲公司系美国“L e v i s”牛仔裤品牌服装运营商，在中国对其包括第2023725号注册商标“”在内的系列商标进行了注册，并在服饰、腰带、钱包等商品上使用，原告诉称被告乙公司在其生产的牛仔裤上未经授权擅自使用了涉案商标并由被告丙公司在网上销售，侵犯了原告注册商标专用权，故诉至法院，请求判令两被告立即停止侵权、赔偿经济损失及维权合理费用共计人民币20万元。

In the trial of this case, upon consensus of the Parties, the court allocated this case to be mediated by World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Shanghai Service ("WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Shanghai Service"). Pudong Court established a special docking work team to learn and pre-judge the possible legal application problems and possible processes linking obstacles in entrusted mediation of foreign-related IP case under applicable laws of China and dispute resolution rules of WIPO Center for Arbitration and Mediation and formulate corresponding working mechanisms and disposal plans, so as to ensure that docking work is carried out according to laws and regulations. According to the demand of the Parties, WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Shanghai Service was coordinated to select expert mediators with professional knowledge background and rich practical experience to preside over the case mediation, assist the mediators to better grasp the key processes in mediation of foreign-related IP case, analyze the legal relationship involved, bridge the gap between Chinese and foreign parties, and meet the demand of Chinese and foreign market players to simplify the right remediation and to diversify dispute resolution methods. Finally, the Parties reached a settlement. The two Defendants paid RMB 100,000 to the Plaintiff, and this case was successfully resolved.

法院经双方当事人同意，在案件审理过程中将该案委派世界知识产权组织仲裁与调解上海中心（以下简称：WIPO仲调上海中心）进行调解。浦东法院成立专门对接调研小组，结合我国法律规定和WIPO仲裁与调解中心的解纷规则，提前研判涉外知产案件委托调解过程中可能存在的法律适用问题、可能出现的流程衔接障碍，并制定相应的工作机制和处置预案，确保依法依规开展对接工作。根据当事人需求，协调WIPO仲调上海中心选派具有专业知识背景和丰富实践经验的专家调解员主持案件调解，协助调解员较好地把握涉外知产案件调解的关键环节，分析涉案法律关系，弥合中外当事人差距，满足中外市场主体对权利救济便利化和纠纷解决方式多元化的需求。最终促成双方达成和解，两被告给付原告人民币10万元，案件得以圆满解决。

Typical Significance

典型意义

This case is China's first foreign-related IP dispute case in which an overseas dispute resolution institution participates and which is successfully settled through the mediation under the cooperation between Pudong Court and WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Shanghai Service. Pudong Court and WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Shanghai Service have carried out in-depth cooperation on dispute resolution of foreign-related IP case, fully explained the contents of entrusted mediation work to Chinese and foreign parties in the mediation process, and established a good communication channel among the Parties and the international mediation organization, thus securing the effect of resolving the foreign-related IP dispute.

本案系浦东法院通过与WIPO仲调上海中心合作，成功调处的全国首例境外争议解决机构参与调解的涉外知识产权纠纷。浦东法院与该中心就涉外知识产权案件的纠纷化解工作开展深度合作，在调解过程中向中外当事人充分释明委托调解工作内容，在当事人与国际调解组织间建立了良好的沟通渠道，确保了涉外知产纠纷处理效果。

英文投稿及市场合作：

jane.jiang@chinaipmagazine.com

18911449529（微信同号）

往期推荐

Paula's Choice, LLC v. Chongqing Kaimenhong Trading Co., Ltd.

Weitong v. Taokaenoi Food & Marketing Public Company

He X v. Beijing XinBang Daikokuya Trading Corporation, Ltd