2. Columbia

In August 2014, Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court delivered a final decision in a trademark case brought by Columbia Sportswear Company (Columbia Company) against an individual surnamed Huang, a footwear retailer in Haizhu District of Guangzhou, Guangdong Province. The ruling dismissed the appeal of Huang and enjoined Huang from infringing use of the registered trademarks of Columbia Company on footwear products with assessment of damages and fees in the amount of 12,000 yuan.

Huang is an individual doing business of footwear products in Haizhu District of Guangzhou. Columbia Company showed by evidence certified by Beijing Fangzheng Notary Public Office in October 2013 that the shoes for sale in Huang’s retailing store were not authorized products.

The court found that Columbia Company has acquired legitimate exclusive rights to use trademarks No.1236702, No.G866360 and No.5288009 which are still in force, entitled to legal protection. The exclusive rights are limited to the trademarks and designated goods approved. The above-mentioned trademarks have gained significantly high reputation among consumers through long-term use and extensive publicity.

Guangzhou Haizhu District People’s Court held that the allegedly infringing gym shoes were all marked with “Columbia” on sides, center of uppers and soles, a sign similar to or identical with trademarks No.1236702, No.G866360 and No.5288009. The products have not been authorized for production by Colombia Company and are likely to cause public misunderstanding as to their origin. Therefore, they are infringing products and Huang shall cease infringement and compensate.

Huang was dissatisfied and appealed to Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court, claiming that the first instance court failed to present clearly ascertained facts and sufficient evidence to prove infringement of the shoes for sale, and failed to compare the shoes for sale with shoes produced or authorized for production by Columbia Company, and uses of trademarks from both sides. Therefore, in the absence of authentication of any materials and discovery in the court, there will be evidently no supporting evidence to prove the infringement of the products.

Columbia Company argued that the first-instance court has clearly ascertained facts and correctly applied the law. Therefore, it requested the court to uphold the first instance ruling.

Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court held that Huang’s appeal is groundless and shall not be supported, and that the first-instance ruling has clearly ascertained facts, applied the law, and shall be upheld. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the first-instance ruling.