On October 27, 2011, Tianjin High People's Court objected the appeal of the defendant and upheld the ruling of the first-instance judgment in favor of U.S. Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company(hereinafter refers to as Wrigley Co.) and its subsidiary in China against Tianjin Pu Tian Tong Le Food Factory etc. for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
Wrigley Co. is one of the world’s leading candy and chewing gum manufacturers. The Company has registered many famous trademarks and launched many brands all over the world, including “Extra®”. After discovering the defendants unauthorized use of the words “Wrigley Company (H.K.) Limited Producer” on the bottle of the product and illegal use of characteristic packaging of Wrigley’s, the U.S. company alleged that such behavior violated the exclusive right of its registered trademark and that this constituted unfair competition. Wrigley Co. then brought the case into court in 2010.
After reviewing the case, the court held that because the plaintiff’s trademark of “Extra益达” is highly popular and has a large influence on the public’s recognition of the brand, such behavior of the defendant would easily lead the consumers to confuse the source of the products, and thereby constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition. Therefore, the court made the first-instance judgment in favor of Wrigley Co. in May this year.
Not satisfied with the decision, the defendant appealed the lawsuit before the High People’s Court in Tianjin City. In October 2011, the High People’s Court finally upheld the ruling of the first-instance judgment in accordance with that when a long-term and stable association has been set up between a commodity and a mark, the mark to be identified and selected among the same kind of products for consumers would become more affected; when the use of the mark is possibly to lead confusion for the source of the products among consumers, the owner of the trademark have the right to stop such behavior. The highlight of use the mark of “Extra益达” by the defendant would mislead and confuse the consumers, and constituted trademark infringement. Additionally, the use of similar package with the “Extra益达” of Wrigley Co. thereby constituted unfair competition. Therefore, the court made the above decision.