Chispo represented UNISPLENDOUR CORPORATION LIMITED in trademark infringement and unfair competition cases separately, taking actions against a renewable energy company. The court ordered the defendant to compensate UNISPLENDOUR CORPORATION LIMITED with 3.2 million yuan in economic losses with reasonable support, and to change their company’s name.

-- Introduction of the Case

The plaintiff, UNISPLENDOUR CORPORATION LIMITED, was founded by Tsinghua University in 1998, and the plaintiff’s “Unisplendour (in Chinese characters)” trademark (No.1153279) has been certified as a famous trademark numerous times on the designated goods “data processing equipment (scanner)”.The plaintiff found that the products “air, energy, water, heater, fingerprint lock” produced and sold by the defendant HANGZHOU UNISPLENDOUR RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. used the mark “Tsinghua Unisplendour (in Chinese characters)”. Meanwhile, the defendant has been using “Unisplendour (in Chinese characters)”as their company name.

On behalf of the plaintiff, we claimed that the defendant’s use of the “Unisplendour (in Chinese characters)” mark constituted trademark infringement, and the use of “Unisplendour (in Chinese characters)” as a company name constituted unfair competition. The court of first instance supported our claim and ordered the defendant to:
1. compensate UNISPLENDOUR CORPORATION LIMITED with 3.2 million yuan for economic losses with reasonable support, and
2. change the name of company.
The defendant appealed against the first instance judgment and the court of second instance rejected the defendant's appeal and upheld the original judgment.

-- Lawyer Comments

At the time of the plaintiff’s lawsuit, the defendant had been established for 10 years, and the goods sold by the defendant overlapped with the goods that had the plaintiff’s famous trademark. On the grounds of popularity and subjective malice, the plaintiff proved that the defendant's use of “Tsinghua Unisplendour (in Chinese characters)” would lead to confusion and misinterpretation. This case provides a good reference for cases of trademark infringement and unfair competition, which regard earlier infringement and cross-class goods protection. At the same time, high compensation judgments have a deterring effect to potential infringers. In the end, the defendant executed the court judgment, assumed the liability for compensation and stopped the infringement.