• Our People
  • Global Presence
  • Regions
    • Asia
    • Europe
    • Americas
  • Offices
    • Canada
      • Ottawa
      • Toronto
    • China
      • Beijing
      • Hong Kong
    • Luxembourg
    • Malaysia
    • Singapore
    • UK
      • Aberdeen
      • Birmingham
      • Cambridge
      • Edinburgh
      • Glasgow
      • London
      • Manchester
      • Oxford
  • Client liaison
    • Japan
    • Korea
  • Expertise
  • Services
    • Patents
    • Brands & Trade Marks
    • Designs
    • Litigation & Dispute Resolution
    • Commercial IP & Contracts
    • Due Diligence
    • Freedom to Operate
    • EPO Patent Oppositions
    • European Patent Validations
    • Anti-counterfeiting
    • Open Source & Third Party Code
  • Sectors
    • Digital Transformation
      • 3D Printing
      • Artificial Intelligence
      • Blockchain
      • Data & Connectivity
      • Extended Reality
      • Industry 4.0
    • Energy & Environment
    • Life Sciences
    • Agritech
    • Medical Technologies
    • Chemistry
    • Transport
    • Entertainment & Creative Industries
    • Food & Drink
    • Fashion & Retail
    • Universities & Research Bodies
    • Start-ups & Spin-outs
      • Creating value for start-ups
      • The IP driven start-up
    • Financial Services
  • About Us
    • Working with us
    • Awards
    • Corporate & Social Responsibility
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Careers
  • Insights
    • Articles
    • News
    • Events
    • Resources
    • Unified Patent Court hub
    • Beyond Brexit: European trade mark hub
    • M&C Reacts
  • Contact Us
Marks & Clerk logo
Marks & Clerk logo
Contact Us
Language
English 中文(简体)
Our People
Global Presence
Regions
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Americas
Offices
  • Canada
    • Ottawa
    • Toronto
  • China
    • Beijing
    • Hong Kong
  • Luxembourg
  • Malaysia
  • Singapore
  • UK
    • Aberdeen
    • Birmingham
    • Cambridge
    • Edinburgh
    • Glasgow
    • London
    • Manchester
    • Oxford
Client liaison
  • Japan
  • Korea
Expertise
Services
  • Patents
  • Brands & Trade Marks
  • Designs
  • Litigation & Dispute Resolution
  • Commercial IP & Contracts
  • Due Diligence
  • Freedom to Operate
  • EPO Patent Oppositions
  • European Patent Validations
  • Anti-counterfeiting
  • Open Source & Third Party Code
Sectors
  • Digital Transformation
    • 3D Printing
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • Blockchain
    • Data & Connectivity
    • Extended Reality
    • Industry 4.0
  • Energy & Environment
  • Life Sciences
  • Agritech
  • Medical Technologies
  • Chemistry
  • Transport
  • Entertainment & Creative Industries
  • Food & Drink
  • Fashion & Retail
  • Universities & Research Bodies
  • Start-ups & Spin-outs
    • Creating value for start-ups
    • The IP driven start-up
  • Financial Services
About Us
  • Working with us
  • Awards
  • Corporate & Social Responsibility
  • Diversity & Inclusion
  • Careers
Insights
  • Articles
  • News
  • Events
  • Resources
  • Unified Patent Court hub
  • Beyond Brexit: European trade mark hub
  • M&C Reacts

MERCURY sues its former franchisee for Trade Mark Infringement

20 July 2022
Sarah Gao
Print
Share

Shanghai MERCURY Home Textiles Co., Ltd (“MERCURY”) is a famous home textile manufacturer in China. It has registered a series of MERCURY trade marks, including no. 4861666, which has been recognized as a “famous” trade mark by the former Trade Mark Office of State Administration for Industry and Commerce since December 2013.

MERCURY logo, Trade mark no.4861666
MERCURY logo, Trade mark no.4861666

In 2020, MERCURY discovered that its former franchisee TengBin was continuing to use the MERCURY brand despite termination of its Franchise Agreement. MERCURY filed a lawsuit requiring TengBin to cease its infringing use and seeking compensation of RMB 250,000 (approx. USD 37,000).

Even though its Franchise Agreement was terminated in 2019, the defendant, TengBin, asserted that it was entitled to dispose of existing inventory and its use of the appellant’ s trade mark constituted use on genuine goods. Based on this argument, the court decided that the defendant’ s use of the appellant’ s mark did not constitute trade mark infringement and that the plaintiff’s request for compensation should be rejected. MERCURY, dissatisfied with this decision, appealed to the Higher People’ s Court.

On appeal, the Court noted that Tengbin seemed to be using MERCURY’s trade mark and logo on shop door signage, posters and shopping receipts as of 7 September 2020.  On the face of it, Tengbin’ s use of the registered trade mark on its shop after termination of the franchise arrangement amounted to an infringement to MERCURY’s trade mark rights, but other factors also needed to be taken into consideration.  For example, Tengbin, as a former franchisee, was required to purchase a certain quantity of goods to fulfil its obligations to MERCURY under the Franchise Agreement, and this resulted in the build-up of inventory remaining with Tengbin after termination of the Agreement. Tengbin used the MERCURY trade marks during its disposal of this inventory with the aim of indicating that the goods on sale were genuine MERCURY goods.  Such use should not in the circumstances be considered use in bad faith.  Also, Tengbin had assigned the shop to a third party on 29 December 2020 and had ceased use of the MERCURY trade marks at the end of 2020. In 2020, normal business operations had been interrupted as a result of the COVID pandemic.  Thus, damage caused by the defendant’ s alleged infringement was minor.  While MERCURY was the rightful owner of the marks and its legitimate interests should be protected by law, MERCURY should also be expected to exercise tolerance towards its former franchisee in the disposal of its inventory of genuine goods within a reasonable time period.  In balancing the competing interests, and in the interests of fairness, the Higher Court finally decided that Tengbin should pay MERCURY compensation of only RMB 20,000 (approx. USD 3,000), inclusive of legal expenses.

Next Story
  • IP protection in collaborations: "Just Do It"
  • Peppa Pig v Wolfoo: clash of the cartoons
  • China: draft amendments to trade mark law
  • US court decision rules that use of “MetaBirkin” in relation to NFTs infringes trade mark rights in “Birkin” - Hermès v Mason Rothschild
  • From Beijing to Barrow - via Mayfair
More insights

Latest Insights

Chemistry
Article
- 24 March 2023

Preliminary position on priority published

As we reported in early 2022, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO are considering two pending referrals (G1/22 and G2/22) regarding the question of entitlement to priority. A hearing has now been set for 26 May 2023, and the Enlarged Board have now issued a preliminary opinion setting out the points to be discussed.
Read more
Quantum computing
Article
- 22 March 2023

International patent insights on quantum computing

The latest patent insight report from the European Patent Office (EPO) looks at the trends in patent filings for quantum computing, and has uncovered some interesting findings.
Read more
Article
- 22 March 2023

InterDigital v Lenovo: The latest FRAND judgment

On 16 March 2023, Mr Justice Mellor handed down the latest FRAND judgment: InterDigital v Lenovo. The case concerned a dispute between InterDigital and Lenovo as to the terms on which Lenovo should take a licence to InterDigital’s portfolio of patents which had been declared essential to the European Telecommunications Standard Institute (ETSI) Standards.
Read more
Marks & Clerk logo (white)
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Notice
  • Cookies
  • Legal Notices
  • Press Enquiries
  • Lexology
  • Mondaq