Case Summary:

The plaintiff, Tsinghua Unigroup Co., Ltd (otherwise known as Qīnghuá Zǐguāng which means Tsinghua Purple Light in Chinese), established in 1988 by Tsinghua University, holds multiple valid registrations for the trademark "紫光" (Zǐguāng - Purple Light) in the "data processing equipment (scanners)" category. The plaintiff identified that the defendant, Hangzhou Purple Light Energy-saving Technology Co., Ltd., was utilizing the designation "清华紫光" (Qīnghuá Zǐguāng - Tsinghua Purple Light) on its air-source water heaters and fingerprint locks. Notably, the defendant had altered its corporate name from "Guangzhou Haoyou Moving Company Ltd." to "Guangzhou Purple Light Moving Company Ltd." Given the substantial recognition of Tsinghua Unigroup Co., the defendant's activities raised suspicions of infringing upon trademarks and engaging in unfair competition. Advocating on behalf of the plaintiff, CHISPO asserted that the defendant's use of "清华紫光" (Qīnghuá Zǐguāng - Tsinghua Purple Light) constituted both trademark infringement and unfair competition. The court of first instance accepted CHISPO’s arguments; which led to the defendant appealing the decision. In the appellate court of second instance, the defendant's appeal was dismissed, and the initial verdict was upheld.

Legal Commentary:

When the plaintiff filed the lawsuit, the defendant had already been in business for a decade, with its product line significantly diverging from the plaintiff's specified goods. By effectively demonstrating the defendant's deliberate malicious intent and showcasing the plaintiff's stellar reputation, CHISPO successfully substantiated the likelihood of consumer confusion arising from the defendant's utilization of "清华紫光" (Qīnghuá Zǐguāng - Tsinghua Purple Light). This case serves as an instructive benchmark for matters involving early-stage infringements and instances of cross-category trademark violations accompanied by elements of unfair competition. Additionally, the considerable compensation awarded in the final judgment played a pivotal role in compelling the infringing party to comply with the court's directive and cease infringing upon the plaintiff’s trademarks.