Court’s Decision on "KUAILIWEISI"'s Translating and Copying "LEVI'S"

Recently, Beijing Intellectual Property Court concluded an administrative trademark invalidation dispute concerning the “LEVI’S” trademark.

The plaintiff Levi Strauss&Co. is the right holder of the “LEVI’S” trademark. It held that the trademark “KUAILIWEISI” (hereinafter referred to as the disputed trademark) applied by the third party Liu Mou is the translation and copy of its well-known trademark “LEVI’S”. Therefore, it filed an invalidation lawsuit against it.

The defendant State Intellectual Property Office held that the disputed trademark did not violate the relevant provisions of Trademark Law, and ruled that the trademark in dispute should be maintained. The plaintiff refused to accept the ruling and appealed to Beijing Intellectual Property Court.

After the hearing, the court found that before the application of the disputed trademark, the plaintiff had continuously used its “LEVI’S” and “李维斯” trademarks, opened more than 500 stores which covered most provinces of the country, and made heavy investment every year to publicize and promote its brand through various forms. “LEVI’S” was listed as a trademark protected with state priority in 1999, and has been recognized as a well-known trademark by the former Trademark Review and Adjudication Board for many times. It has been a well-known trademark for its jeans products to the relevant public.

The disputed trademark is composed of the Chinese “酷艾李维斯” and its corresponding Chinese Pinyin, in which “酷艾李维斯” contains exactly the characters “李维斯”, which is the imitation of the plaintiff’s “李维斯” trademark. Besides, “李维斯” is also the corresponding Chinese translation of “LEVI’S”. Both the disputed trademark and the plaintiff’s “LEVI’S” and “李维斯” are designated for use in clothing and other commodities.

Therefore, considering the high popularity of the plaintiff’s “LEVI’S” trademark, the similarity of the disputed trademark to it, and the similarity between the two designated commodities, the application for registration of the disputed trademark constitutes copying and imitation of the prior well-known trademark. Thus, it should be invalidated. The court decided to revoke the ruling in dispute and ordered the State Intellectual Property Office to remake its decision.

October 19, 2019

Source: www.chinacourt.org

Photo from: 699pic.com