Case Brief

Doctor Long Company, based on its  “TATA” trademark registered for use on Class 6 goods, such as “metal doors,” asserted rights against Yuanmu Company (a distributor of Beijing Tata Company), alleging that  Yuanmu’s use of the “TATA” mark on two door models it sold constituted infringement.The Yuanmu Company defended that it was authorized by the Beijing Tata Company to legitimately use the trademark "TATA" registered in Class 19 for "non-metal doors" Chengdu High-tech Industrial Development Zone People's Court ruled in the first instance that both door models involved were metal doors, infringing the exclusive trademark rights of the Doctor Long Company.

Second Instance Defense

1. By integrating industry standards, authoritative documents, the opposing party's test reports, and limitations on goods of Class 6 specified in the Similar Goods and Services Classification Table, Unitalen’s attorneys precisely pinpointed the product classification, presented multi-angle evidence to re-emphasize the classification logic of goods, and rebutted the "metal door" characterization.

2. By demonstrating the defendant's sales scenarios and the product features of the doors involved that require customization, Unitalen’s attorneys strengthened the argument of "no likelihood of confusion", blocking the infringement chain.

3.Prior judgments had  recognized Beijing Tata Company’s “TATA” trademark as a well-known trademark, and the plaintiff had been ordered to cease using the  “TATA” trademark on door products. Therefore, the plaintiff itself had no right to assert infringement against others .Simultaneously, Unitalen’s attorneys submitted evidence to the court including squatting series trademarks, establishing affiliated companies, initiating similar lawsuits against distributors nationwide, etc. performed by the plaintiff, all of which confused the market and abused judicial resources. This powerfully proves the plaintiff's history of malicious free-riding and highlights its bad faith in litigation.

Second Instance Judgment

Chengdu Intermediate People's Court held in the second instance that, based on relevant public perception in the industry and limitations on goods of Class 6 specified in the Similar Goods and Services Classification Table, the accused products in this case all belong to non-metal doors. The Yuanmu Decoration Company was authorized and licensed by the Beijing Tata Company to use the trademark "TATA" registered in Class 19 for "non-metal doors". Considering the manner of Yuanmu Decoration Company's use of the mark "TATA" and the recognition of "TATA" as a well-known trademark, consumers could recognize that products sold by the Yuanmu Decoration Company originated from the Beijing Tata Company. Since the Doctor Long Company had been prohibited from using its registered trademark due to intentional infringement, consumers were even less likely to mistake the accused products as originating from Doctor Long Company. To sum up, it is determined that the Yuanmu Decoration Company’s acts did not constitute trademark infringement or unfair competition. All lawsuits and claims of the Doctor Long Company were dismissed.

Case Significance

This case  addresses critical legal issues, including trademark infringement determinations,  classification of goods,  and the prohibition of a registered trademark deemed maliciously squatted. It not only provides  a significant precedent for the industry，but also has profound implications for regulating market competition and combating  trademark speculation.