The trademark lawsuit between Honda and chongqing lifan is the only successful case in all intellectual property disputes between Chinese and foreign automobile industries.
The dispute with Honda Lifan has a long history. Chongqing lifan, formerly known as Chongqing Hongda Industrial Co., Ltd., began to produce motorcycles in 1997. 1995. When HTC bought the trademark "Hongda Honda" from an enterprise in Wuxi for 40,000 yuan and registered the trademark "Hongda SINO- Hongda" in the State Trademark Office, Honda Technology Research Industry Co., Ltd. raised an objection. HONDA believes that there is a letter G between the Chinese pinyin of "Honda" and Honda's English, Honda is Honda, and HTC's Chinese pinyin is Honda. 1997 1 In July, the State Trademark Office ruled that Honda's trademark infringement objection was established, so the trademark was not registered.
1997, after the ruling of the State Trademark Office of China, Honda still found that the lifan motorcycle marked "Honda" was on sale in the process of counterfeiting in China. In 2000, with the help of Wenling City in Zhejiang Province and Nanchang City in Jiangxi Province, Honda banned the sale of motorcycle engines marked "Honda" in the market. Nanchang Industrial and Commercial Bureau and Wenling Industrial and Commercial Bureau imposed fines of 6 1 000 yuan and 42,000 yuan on the distribution enterprises respectively, and removed the "Honda" logo from the engine.
200111/in October, Chongqing Hongda Industrial Co., Ltd. was renamed as chongqing lifan Industrial Co., Ltd., completing the transformation from "Hongda" to "Lifan". In 2003, Lifan Group's sales revenue reached more than 6 billion RMB, and its export value exceeded 200 million US dollars, ranking first in China's motorcycle industry.
However, Honda found that Lifan's infringement has always existed. In April of 20001year, Honda issued a warning letter to Lifan Group, hoping that it would completely stop the infringement. After unsuccessful negotiation, on July 24th, 2002, Honda, together with Wuyang Honda, Sundiro Honda and Jialing Honda owned by the mainland, took the plaintiff's seat and sued Cao Yawen, chongqing lifan Motorcycle Factory and Lifan Group, the owners of Gigi Lai Qiangzi Motorcycle Store (hereinafter referred to as the Store) in Tongzhou District, Beijing, for infringing the exclusive right to use Honda's trademark, demanding compensation of 25.02 million yuan from the three defendants, and requesting the court to evaluate Honda. The evidence provided by Honda is that the three lifan motorcycle cars it purchased-"Lifan LF 100-4" and "Lifan LF 1 10-B" used the "Honda" logo similar to that of Japanese Honda.
Zhu, spokesman of Honda's Beijing office, told reporters: "Lifan's use of trademarks similar to Honda's on similar motorcycle products is very easy to mislead consumers. Originally, consumers may want to buy Honda products, but when they see products with similar trademarks, they buy Lifan products, which harms the interests of Honda and consumers. "
In this regard, Lifan said that the motorcycles involved were rough in workmanship, not produced by themselves, and were also victims of counterfeit motorcycles in China. In addition, Lifan also claimed that Honda sued Lifan because it was at a disadvantage in the Vietnamese market, and appealed for support from all walks of life on the grounds of the overall interests of China's motorcycle industry.
Honda's image as a "troublemaker" in China's motorcycle industry has been deeply rooted in people's hearts (before 2004, Honda had initiated seven intellectual property lawsuits in China, including China National Intellectual Property Administration), and its relationship with Japanese companies was easily resented by the media and the public, so the media did not have a good look at Honda.
Some people think: "In an environment where the market and profits are constantly being divided, Japanese motorcycle companies generally feel fear and pressure. Since 2000, Japanese motorcycles that once dominated the Southeast Asian market have been severely hit by China, especially Chongqing motorcycles. With the advantages of high quality and low price, China motorcycle enterprises occupy nearly 80% market share in Southeast Asia. " According to statistics, of the 1 1 10,000 motorcycles produced in China every year, nearly 9 million are "pirated" Japanese products, of which 2 million are exported to Asian countries. In the China market, Japanese companies Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki and Kawasaki Heavy Industries have successively launched a series of large-scale intellectual property lawsuits.
Only a few media are worried about the intellectual property crisis faced by the motorcycle industry in China, and deeply worried about the prospects of the cottage development road generally supported by the industry: "Some Japanese companies believe that 90% of the technology in the motorcycle industry in China infringes Japanese patents." "In order to survive and develop, enterprises must design and manufacture products with independent intellectual property rights."
However, under such favorable public opinion conditions, Lifan destroyed the Great Wall and made a stupid move-canceling chongqing lifan Motorcycle Factory, which inevitably gave people the impression of having a guilty conscience. On June 20, 2004, 65438+February 20, 2004, the court made a first-instance judgment, holding that Honda's logo was similar to Honda's registered trademark, and the logos of Honda, Lifan-Hongda and Li Fen-Honda used in the lifan motorcycle involved in the case constituted an infringement on Honda's exclusive right to register a trademark. The court of first instance ruled that Lifan Industrial Company compensated Honda Company for 6.5438+0.47 million yuan, and stopped manufacturing and selling infringing products marked with "Honda". In addition, a shopkeeper selling lifan motorcycle in Beijing was also sentenced to 6,000 yuan as compensation.
The court also pointed out that Lifan Industrial knew that chongqing lifan Nippon Motorcycle Co., Ltd. was the alleged infringer in the pending lawsuit before it liquidated the creditor's rights and debts of chongqing lifan Nippon Motorcycle Co., Ltd. and applied for cancellation, so its actions had the subjective malice of exempting chongqing lifan Nippon Motorcycle Co., Ltd. from tort civil liability and should bear corresponding legal responsibilities. Honda's victory is only a limited victory. Its claim to "stop selling infringing products" was not supported because the defendant company was cancelled, and the huge claim was also considered unfounded. However, compared with Honda's complete failure in other lawsuits, the limited victory over Lifan gave Honda an island to breathe.
I will use it.
Million car purchase subsidy