This case is important because it’s the first in PRC that the Court clearly stated that trademark infringement constitutes unfair competition when infringers abuse the trademark prosecution procedure.
Heinz Hankammer, the owner of BRITA water filtration brand is very popular in China. In 2023, BRITA won a trademark infringement and unfair competition case against a malicious trademark squatter.
The Court backed BRITA’s claims that the infringer should be held accountable for damages, false advertising, and costs borne by Plaintiff because of Defendant’s malicious applications, objections and invalidation proceedings.
Shanghai Minhang District Court ruled that the defendant had applied for and/or registered 21 similar trademarks to the BRITA brand. This was in addition to its unauthorized use of BRITA marks on its products, WeChat accounts and online stores, which constitutes trademark infringement.
The defendant then filed oppositions and invalidations against the trademarks of the brand owner BRITA. The brand owner spent a lot of legal fees and time dealing with the invalidations or oppositions filed by the defendant. The brand owner has been severely disrupted by the long-winded trademark prosecution procedures and litigations. Although its trademark rights were protected, it had to spend a lot of time on them.
The court found the defendant’s trademark squatting, and its abuse of opposition procedures are merely a part its comprehensive and large-scale infringement scheme that serves its purpose of infringement. The defendant’s abuses of trademark administrative procedures amounted to unfair competition.
