An enterprise in Dongguan, Guangdong is suspected of being "Y 3".

According to the court, in December 16, 2002, Adidas registered its trademark "Y-3" on the eighteenth categories of commodities for the international registration of Madrid trademark, and extended the protection to China. The right to exclusive use of the trademark was valid from December 16, 2002 to December 16, 2012, and the products were approved to cover leather products, boxes and so on. G794599

In August 2003, "Y-3" began to sell sports fashion products in the Chinese market, and set up stores in mainland China, Taiwan and Hongkong, and established a high reputation and influence.

In August 21, 2006, Jinggu International Trade Co., Ltd. registered in Taiwan approved the registration of the "Y 3" trademark on the twenty-eighth category of commodities through the China Trademark Office. The exclusive right is valid until August 20, 2016, and entrusts Dongguan Jin Gu composite material Co., Ltd. as its producer and domestic distributor.

It is understood that the "Y 3" logo "multifunctional package" produced by Dongguan Jin Gu company does not belong to the twenty-eighth category products.

Adidas believes that the "Y 3" logo used by the Taiwan Jinggu company and the Dongguan Jin Gu company to produce, sell and display on the webpage is the same as the "Y-3" trademark pronunciation. The visual difference is not great. It is difficult to distinguish the relevant public from the general attention. The two trademark is similar and has the intention of malicious confusion. Its behavior constitutes a violation of its trademark exclusive right.

Moreover, the "multi-function backpack" products produced by the two companies belong to the eighteenth category of "registered bags and travel bags" of registered products. They are not the twenty-eighth category "special bags for ball and racket".

The intermediate people's Court of Dongguan held that the defendant's "Y 3" trademark is basically the same as Adidas's "Y-3" trademark. Its pronunciation is the same, its overall appearance is similar, it is an approximate trademark, and it is easy for consumers to produce associations between producers and producers, resulting in confusion.

Moreover, the defendant, marked with the "Y 3" trademark, expanded the scope of the use of the twenty-eighth types of trademarks.

The court finally decided that Taiwan Jinggu company and Dongguan Jin Gu company were tortious, and decided that the losing party would stop infringement and compensate Adidas company for 200 thousand yuan.