China fines firms for using BMW-like trademark: media
DeeperDive is a beta AI feature. Refer to full articles for the facts.
[SHANGHAI] A court in Shanghai ordered two Chinese firms and the founder of one of them to pay automaker BMW 3 million yuan (S$622,500) for registering trademarks similar to that of the German firm, the Shanghai Daily reported on Tuesday.
The ruling is the latest win for a large foreign firm in China, a sign that courts are taking trademark infringement more seriously in a country dogged with fakes of everything from clothing brands to entire shops.
Zhou Leqin, one of the accused, registered Deguo Baoma Group (Int'l) Holdings Limited, which translates as German BMW Group (Int'l) Holdings Limited, in China in 2008, the paper reported the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court as saying.
With the company, Mr Zhou then bought and registered the trademark "BMN", with a logo similar to BMW's, it added.
BMW, Deguo Baoma Group, Chuangjia and Zhou Leqin could not be immediately reached for comment.
Fashion firm Chuangjia, the second firm fined, then used the trademark on products including clothes, shoes and bags, changing the logo over the years to more closely resemble BMW's.
Navigate Asia in
a new global order
Get the insights delivered to your inbox.
The accused infringed BMW's trademarks registered in China by taking advantage of its reputation, the paper reported the court saying.
In early December, China's highest court ruled in favour of basketball star Michael Jordan in a long-running trademark case relating to a local sportswear firm using the Chinese version of his name, overturning earlier rulings against the athlete.
REUTERS
Share with us your feedback on BT's products and services
TRENDING NOW
Vietnam formalises new state leadership, redefining ‘four pillars’ power balance
‘Largest Singapore commercial S-Reit proxy’: analysts say buy CICT shares after Paragon acquisition
From 1MDB to ‘corporate mafia’: Is Malaysia facing a new governance test?
Why where you park your joint venture matters: Lessons from a US$689 million shareholder dispute