Court Cases
Infringement Case of Trademark “EPI”
Tokyo District Court, November 21, 2007Japanese major esthetic salon chain, TBC Group Co. Ltd., which owns the trademark “EPI” sued Splash Corporation, which operated esthetic salons using the trademark “Epi Salon” or “Epi Studio.” In the court, TBC called for on Splash, injunction of the trademarks, withdrawal of relevant advertisements including car cards, compensation for damages and publication of an apology. The Tokyo District Court judged that the trademarks of the defendant was registered in the same class of service as the trademark of the plaintiff, and the main part of the defendant’s trademark is “Epi,” which is similar to the plaintiff’s trademark in visual impression, sound and idea. The judge concluded that the trademarks of the defendant should be invalid, as they are similar to someone’s prior registered trademark and fail to meet requirements for registration. Splash was ordered to stop using the trademarks, withdraw advertisements and pay 90 million yen in damages.
|
TBC’s trademark |
Esthetic Salon “Epi Salon Jiyugaoka” |
|
|
|
Trademark Infringement by China’s Motorbike Manufactures (YAMAHA)
Supreme People's Court of China, June 5, 2007The final judgment on Yamaha Motor’s five year trademark infringement case was finally made. Yamaha filed a suit against four Chinese companies, which were manufacturing and selling scooters with the trademark “日本 [Japan] YAMAHA” in China, including Zhejiang Huatian Industrial. Co. Ltd. in Zhejian province. The defendants contended that they had a trademark licensing agreement with “Japan Yamaha Corporation,” a ghost company registered in Ishikawa Prefecture, central Japan. The court ordered the defendants to stop the trademark infringement, make a public apology in a motorcycle magazine and pay damages of 132 million yen.
Fake PUMA Case
Tokyo District Court, December 18, 2003German sports goods maker, Puma filed a law suit against Tokyo-based distributor Relax Inc., which sold fake Puma bags on the Internet, for infringing the trademark right, demanding compensation of damages. Relax argued that what they distributed were parallel imports of genuine goods. The presiding judge stated that the defendant’s allegation is not credible and ordered Relax to publish an apology in newspapers and to pay more than 14 million yen, equivalent to the margin of 4,400 pieces of bogus bag, almost certainly at Puma’s request.
