Gucci Is The First Eight Hundred Companion.

The "Gucci", founded in Gucci group of Italy, is a world-renowned luxury brand. The logo printed on the "GG" brand appears as a symbol of "identity and wealth" in all kinds of luggage and footwear of Gucci, and is highly regarded by business people and celebrities. However, such an "GG" trademark, which is famous for its luxury and high reputation, has also been infringed recently. The infringer is a well-known domestic enterprise, Jiangsu Sunda Group Co., Ltd. 　　 At 9 a.m. this morning, the court of Pudong New Area, Shanghai filed a verdict on the infringement of the exclusive right to trademark in Italy, GUCCIO GUCCI S.P.A and Shanghai first eight hundred companion company (hereinafter referred to as the first eight hundred partner). The defendant and the first eight hundred partners immediately stopped the infringement of the exclusive right to use the registered trademark. We should compensate the plaintiff, Gu Qiao Gu Xi, for the economic loss of RMB 180 thousand yuan. Plaintiff: the price of 3690 yuan has fallen into 187 yuan, which is one of the world's largest and leading multinational companies producing clothing and luxury luxury products. The company's "GG" trademark has been in use since 1961, and has been in the history of more than 40 years. In 1999 and 2002, the company was allowed to register the "GG" trademark in China. At present, the "GG" trademark has been regarded as one of the classic signs by consumers and the relevant media. Gu Qiao Gu Xi has provided ELLE (World Fashion court), VOGUE China (dress and beauty), Ruili magazine, China Luci (Lucy China), MAIRE CLAIRE (Jia ren) and other magazines, proving that its "GG" trademark has enjoyed a high reputation after years of unremitting efforts. 　　 "The ladies' sandals authorized by our company to use the" GG "trademark are priced at 3690 yuan in Hualian new light department store (Beijing) Co., Ltd.," the plaintiff agent stated in court. In August 2006, Gu Qiao Gu Xi surprised to find that women's sandals with "GG" trademark appeared in the first eight hundred companion of Pudong, Shanghai. The shoe lining of the shoe was heavily used. The "GG" logo, which is marked with the "Senda-woman" mark on the middle part of the shoe's shoe middle, is obviously produced by the company and sold in the Sanda counter, while the sale amount is only 187 yuan. 　　 Gu Qiao Gu Xi company believes that the behavior of the company and the first eight hundred partners is easy to mislead the public, causing the public to misunderstand the source of the goods, or mistakenly assume that there is a specific link between the goods and the plaintiff, which constitutes a violation of the plaintiff's trademark rights. Therefore, the court ordered the two defendants to stop the infringement immediately and jointly compensate for the total economic losses of 615446 yuan. Defendant: the sale of the counter will not be "mistaken". The defendant, Sunda company, believes that the sandal logo is clearly marked on the women's sandals produced by him. The shoebox also clearly indicates the name and graphic trademark of the company. Meanwhile, shoes are sold in the sale of the Sanda counters as a well-known trademark in China, and consumers will not be misled. "Gu Qiao Gu Xi's footwear products belong to the high-end product type. Most of the products belong to the middle range of commodities. They have different consumption groups, and the difference is obvious." At the same time, the company also proposed that the "GG" figure on women's shoes is actually not a trademark, nor a pattern attached to goods or packaging. It only belongs to a "mark symbol" as a pattern of shoe material. "This shoe material is purchased by our purchasing personnel openly and legally in the market, and the cloth source is legal. We have no subjective intention of infringement." Finally, the company asked the court to reject the original request. 　　 The defendant, the first eight hundred companion, said that the relationship between the company and the sundera company was commissioned by a consignment contract, and that women's shoes were lawfully acquired. When they sold, they did not know whether the women's shoes involved were infringed on the exclusive rights of the plaintiff. In the contract, the two parties also agreed that the goods entrusted to be sold should not be used or embezzled by others' trademarks, otherwise they should bear corresponding liabilities for breach of contract. Partners have already done their duty of care and should not be liable for damages. Court: consumers "do not confuse" does not mean that people around consumers "will not be confused". After hearing the trial, the court held that the "GG" trademark has become a high-end brand in clothing, shoes, leather products and other fields. The company used "GG" graphics on women's sandals, and consumers may mistakenly assume that the products involved in the products were jointly launched by Sunda and Gu Qiao Gu Xi. Moreover, the product positioning of the original defendant and the defendant is different. The footwear products of the ancient Qiao Qiao Xi company belong to the high-end product type. Most of the products belong to the middle range of commodities. The use of the logo will cause the public to make changes in the recognition function of the "GG graphics" trademark, which will directly affect the saliency of the "GG" trademark, which will lead to trademark dilution. The court also pointed out that consumers do not "confuse" the source of their products at the time of purchase, which does not mean that people around the purchaser will not be confused. Women's shoes are labeled "Senda-woman" only in the middle of the shoes. When consumers are actually wearing them, they can't see the "Senda-woman" mark covered by their feet. Instead, the "GG" logo on the lining of the shoe lining is clearly visible. This will lead to the misrecognition of other buyers' actual consumption brands, which will undoubtedly reduce the value of the "GG graphics" trademark. It will affect its recognition. As a professional shoe manufacturer, the company has the duty to pay attention to the well-known registered trademarks in the industry. As for the defendant's first eight hundred companion, the court considered that the seller had lawfully obtained women's shoes as a seller, and there was no evidence that he had already known the infringement of goods involved in the sale. Therefore, the first eight hundred companion was not guilty of no fault and had no obligation to pay compensation, but the sale of women's shoes should be stopped immediately. In summary, according to the public awareness of the plaintiff's trademark, the circumstances of the defendant's infringement, the degree of subjective negligence and the consequences, and the plaintiff's reasonable cost to stop the infringement, the indemnity amount of the company was determined, and the above decision was made.