Language

LEGO vs. LEPIN: How Punitive Damages work in a Trademark Infringement Case

Author: Yingying Zhu, Partner at Beijing MINGDUN Law Firm

Email: zhu.yingying@mdlaw.cn

Date: May 5, 2021

 


Introduction

 

In China, compensatory damages are also called “actual damages”, which compensate a plaintiff for the losses suffered due to the harm caused by the defendant. In addition to compensatory damages, punitive damages may be awarded by judges in some exceptional cases. Punitive damages are known as having a 'quasi-criminal' nature and serving the function of punishing the defendant in a civil lawsuit. In fact, the purposes of punitive damages are two-fold: to punish the defendant for outrageous misconduct and to deter the society from committing similar misbehavior in the future.

 

In a trademark infringement civil lawsuit, the basic principle is to monetarily compensate the plaintiff’s losses due to the defendant’s trademark infringement activities. Damages awarded in a typical trademark infringement lawsuit are meant to make the plaintiff “whole” again from a financial standpoint. That being said, punitive damages are possible in cases where the defendants are found to be willful, malicious and highly reprehensible and the circumstances of the case are severe.

 

The Guangdong High Court struck a heavy blow to a copycat of LEGO in the LEGO vs. LEPIN judgement[1] with an award of CNY30 million (USD4.56 million) as punitive damages to compensate the aggrieved plaintiff and to punish the defendants whose infringement acts were considered willful, malicious and especially reprehensible with severe circumstances.

 

As one of the landmark rulings in the landscape of awarding punitive damages under the trademark law regime, the LEGO vs. LEPIN judgement is sending a strong and positive message to brand owners who have been bitterly battling with copycats — “We've Got Your Back”.

 

Basic Facts

 

Since 2015, under the brand name “LEPIN”, Guangdong Meizhi and three affiliates had been actively engaged in copying LEGO building sets and multiple LEGO minifigures, passing off the LEGO brand, and carrying out unfair competition practices by imitating, manufacturing and selling building brick toys nearly identical with those of LEGO. In addition, the external design, packaging and manuals of LEPIN’s products were also direct imitations of those designed and used by LEGO. Furthermore, the defendants rushed to file a series of trademarks for LEPIN in relation to toys in China.

According to the figures released by a Shanghai court in a related criminal judgement,[2] during the period from September 2017 to April 2019, through the channels of online and brick-and-mortar stores selling, the defendants sold out nearly 4.25 million boxes of LEGO counterfeit toys involving 634 different LEGO models, generating a revenue of more than CNY330 million.

LEGO filed a series of civil and criminal lawsuits against Guangdong Meizhi and its affiliates in different Chinese cities to seek injunction against the defendants’ use of LEGO’s intellectual property as well as their activities of unfair competition, and to claim damages and legal expenses.

In the trademark infringement and unfair competition lawsuit filed in Guangdong Province, the court of the first instance, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court, found that Guangdong Meizhi and its affiliates had cloned LEGO toys since 2015 and produced numerous copycat versions under the LEPIN trademark and some other fraudulent trademarks, which are confusingly similar with those of LEGO’s. Their acts constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition. The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court ruled that Guangdong Meizhi and the other three defendants should pay the maximum amount of statutory damages, i.e., CNY3 million (USD456,000).[3] Dissatisfied with the amount of damages awarded by the first instance court, both parties — the plaintiff and the defendants — appealed to the court of the second instance, the Guangdong High Court.

On February 26, 2021, the Guangdong High Court handed down the final judgment in this case. The Guangdong High Court multiplied by 10 times the initial damages awarded to LEGO. Guangdong Meizhi and three other defendants who are behind the clone brand LEPIN infringing upon trademark rights held by LEGO must now pay CNY30 million (USD4.56 million) as punitive damages, a large sum of damages award rarely rendered in previous trademark infringement cases.

Why Punitive Damages work in LEGO vs. LEPIN

 

To explain the awarding of the aforesaid punitive damages, the Guangdong High Court highlights the following elements of “culpability” on the part of the defendants:

1.    'LEPIN' infringement lasted for a long time, in large scale, and with high profitability.

2.    'LEPIN' infringed upon a series of the plaintiff’s commercial designations and logos. With an infringing network rich in design and organization, the defendants’ acts demonstrated an obvious malice of imitating and free riding 'LEGO', which should be categorized as a serious infringement, and should be given a heavy punishment.

3.    According to the sales data of 'LEPIN' provided by Zhejiang Taobao Network Company, it can be reasonably presumed that the sales amount of the infringing products exceeds CNY500 million. Based on the reasonable estimation of the profit rate of related industries, the overall profit of the infringing products involved should be far more than CNY160 million.

4.    The strength of judicial relief should match the reputation of the plaintiff’s involved intellectual property. After long-term use and publicity, the 'LEGO' trademark has a high popularity in the toy market and has already become the main logo used by the relevant public to identify LEGO products. Guangdong Meizhi and its affiliates had used 'LEPIN' logo for multiple times, which is very similar to 'LEGO' in terms of color combination, form of expression, overall visual effect, etc., and can easily lead to confusion among the public, thus weakening the distinctness of 'LEGO' trademark and damaging its market reputation.

5.    During the process of litigating the case before the courts, the evidence production of the two parties showed that the plaintiff was trying their best to prove the sales records of the defendants and the profits gained by them while the defendants were attempting to evade liabilities who shall then bear the unfavorable consequences of their dishonest acts during the litigation.

Therefore, LEGO's claim for compensation in the amount of CNY30 million (USD4.56 million) has been fully upheld the Guangdong High Court as the Court finds that the defendants are willful, malicious and highly reprehensible and the circumstances of the case at bar are severe.

How Punitive Damages Came into Play under the Chinese IP Laws

 

In China, intellectual property litigations especially trademark infringement litigations almost always end up with low damages awards which have long been a shared concern for intellectual property right holders. Therefore, to establish a system where awarding punitive damages would become possible has been one of the central themes of China's major intellectual property law reforms over the past decade.

 

In 2013, the China Trademark Law was amended and made the first attempt to establish a system of punitive damages for malicious infringement by providing under Article 63: “[I]f the infringement is committed in bad faith with serious circumstances, the damages shall be determined in accordance with the aforesaid method[4] based on one to three times of the determined amount.”

 

In 2019, Article 63 of China Trademark Law was amended for the damages to be ranged from “one to three times” to “one to five times”. In addition, the punitive damages system was added to the Anti-Unfair Competition Law which was amended in the same year. Furthermore, a policy-type Regulations on Improving the Operation of Business promulgated and implemented in 2019 established a punitive compensation system for infringement upon intellectual property rights.

 

In 2020, the China Patent Law and the China Copyright Law, which were amended in the same year also explicitly formulated a system of punitive damages.

 

In January 2021, the Civil Code of China, which came into effect on the very first day of 2021, provides that “[I]n case of intentional infringement of another party's intellectual property rights and under serious circumstances, the infringed party shall have the right to request the corresponding punitive damages.”

 

In March 2021, the Supreme Court of China issued the Interpretation on the Application of Punitive Damages in the Trial of Civil Cases involving Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights and timely published six typical cases of punitive damages applied in civil cases involving infringement of intellectual property rights.

 

Practical Tips on Presenting Punitive Damages Cases at Trial

 

As demonstrated in the above, with respect to trademark infringement litigation, punitive damages are only possible in exceptional cases, where the “malicious intention” of the infringer and the “serious circumstances” of the infringement could be well established. Here are some practical tips on presenting punitive damages cases at trials concerning trademark infringement:

 

·         Gather information from websites, social media and online or offline sales platforms to show method and frequency of the infringement, the duration of the infringement, the geographical scope, scale and consequences of the infringement, the unit price of the infringing products, the annual sales records of the infringer, and the average profit rates in the same or related industries.  

·         Raise evidence to show the reputation of the plaintiff’s involved trademarks or products, the duration of the use, the geographical scope, scale and popularity of any advertising activities, records of being protected by any previous administrative or judicial actions and comparable licensing fees of the involved trademarks.

·         Show to the judge that the defendant still commits infringement upon intellectual property rights after being notified or warned by the plaintiff or party of interest. 

·         Consider having communications with the defendant notarized and bringing notaries to meetings with the defendant.  

·         Review the defendant’s trademark filings for evidence that it has applied for illegitimate trademarks, a fact that increases the possibility that a court will find bad faith.  

·         Check the defendant’s litigation history to see if it has a prior record of being sued by other legitimate brand owners.  

·         Review corporate records to see if the defendant was a previous trading partner of the plaintiff’s business.  

·         Consider bringing the following facts to the judge: the defendant forges, destroys or conceals any evidence of infringement; the defendant obtains huge benefits from the infringement or causes huge loss to the plaintiff’s business due to the infringement.

·         Seek a court order asking the defendant to provide its sales records, account books and original receipts relating to the infringement, and if the defendant refuses to provide them without any justified reason or provides any false account book or other documents, the court may determine the base number for calculating the amount of punitive damages by referring to the plaintiff’s claim and evidence.  

·         Notarized evidence of bad faith has a unique and important probative value before the court.

·         With preliminary evidence of infringement, a preservation action seeking to preserve evidence of infringement including sales records, account books and original receipts can be an effective weapon. 

 

Conclusion

 

In China, the call for awarding punitive damages has been intensified due to the increase in malicious infringement, the importance for adequately compensating the plaintiff and the need for deterrence.

 

The LEGO vs. LEPIN judgement of the Guangdong High Court is a crucial milestone in the long struggle by brand owners and advocates to remedy the bitter fact of “high enforcement costs of the IPR owners and low infringement costs of the infringers”. This decision and the continued amendments to the China Trademark Law and other major IP laws strengthen the position of legitimate IPR owners against malicious copycats and counterfeiters. 




Footnotes


[1] Lego Group vs Guangdong Meizhi, etc., Guangdong High Court: (2020) Yue Min Zhong No. 1642.

[2] The Third Branch of Shanghai Municipal People's Procuratorate of the People's Republic of China vs Li Haipeng, etc., Shanghai High Court: (2020) Hu Ling Zhong No. 105. Under this criminal judgment, nine principals of LEPIN were heavily fined and sentenced to jail due to their criminal acts of copyright violation upon various LEGO toys.

[3] Lego Group vs Guangdong Meizhi, etc., Guangzhou IP Court: (2016) Yue 73 Min Chu No. 1692.

[4] “The aforesaid method” means: “[T]he amount of damages for infringement upon the right to exclusively use a registered trademark shall be determined according to the actual losses suffered by the right holder from the infringement; where it is difficult to determine the amount of actual losses, the amount of damages may be determined according to the benefits acquired by the infringer from the infringement; where it is difficult to determine the right holder's losses or the benefits acquired by the infringer, the amount of damages may be a reasonable multiple of the royalties”, as provided under Article 63 of the China Trademark Law.


  • 相关资讯 More
  • 点击次数: 1000003
    2025 - 03 - 28
    作者:赵丹青 不同于普通商品广告,药品由于其治病救人、直接关乎人民生命、健康安全的特殊性,对于药品的广告,我国设立了严格的监管措施。 根据药品的属性,不同药品在广告方面的规定大致分为以下三种: 第一、特殊药品不得作广告,包括麻醉药品、精神药品、医疗用毒性药品、放射性药品等特殊药品,药品类易制毒化学品,以及戒毒治疗的药品、医疗器械和治疗方法,不得作广告。第二、处方药,只能在国务院卫生行政部门和国务院药品监督管理部门共同指定的医学、药学专业刊物上作广告。并且应当显著标明本广告仅供医学药学专业人士阅读。第三、非处方药可以作广告,但广告的内容受到严格限制,包括但不限于:1、药品广告的内容不得与国务院药品监督管理部门批准的说明书不一致,并应当显著标明禁忌、不良反应。2、非处方药广告应当显著标明请按药品说明书或者在药师指导下购买和使用。3、不得含有表示功效、安全性的断言或者保证。4、不得说明治愈率或有效率。5、不得与其他药品进行功效和安全性比较。6、不得利用广告代言人作推荐、证明。 同时,我国对于药品广告实行审批制度。发布药品广告,应当向药品生产企业所在地省、自治区、直辖市人民政府药品监督管理部门报送有关材料,取得《医疗广告审查证明》。并且,药品生产企业不得篡改经批准的药品广告内容。 需要注意的是,伴随自媒体时代的快速发展,在所谓私域如微信朋友圈、微信群里发布药品广告,也应遵守法律法规,对广告内容的真实性尽到审核、把关义务,否则也将承担相应的法律责任。比如,如果广告中涉及的药品为处方药,显然朋友圈不属于法律规定的医学、药学专业刊物,那么该广告发布行为就构成违法发布处方药广告。即便该药品为非处方药,该广告内容是否合法,是否取得《医疗广告审查证明》等都需要仔细审核。 了解这些知识,可以帮助普通消费者在日常生活中判断药品广告的真实性...
  • 点击次数: 100004
    2025 - 03 - 14
    作者:张嘉畅在品牌竞争愈发激烈的当下,商标不仅是企业的身份标识,更是市场竞争中的宝贵资产。然而,不少企业由于种种原因未能及时完成商标注册,导致商标遭他人抢注。面对这一挑战,如何有效维权成为企业关注的重点议题。以下为您详细解析在中国,若商标尚未注册却遭遇抢注,应采取哪些策略进行维权。首先,即便商标未经注册,只要符合特定条件,依然能够获得法律庇护。如果您的商标已在中国大陆使用,则可以受到在先使用的保护。如果您的商标未经注册但已经使用获得了较高知名度,可以依据《商标法》第十三条向法院申请认证为驰名商标。如果您的商标标识具有独创性,则该标识可以受到著作权保护。其次,《商标法》明确规定,商标申请应当出于善意,且不得侵犯他人权利。因此,如遇商标抢注行为,您可以援引《商标法》第四条、第九条、第十条、第十三条、第十五条、第三十条、第三十二条,对恶意抢注商标采取措施,以维护自身权利。依据《商标法》的相关条款,您可以采取以下行动维护权益。一、提起商标异议若抢注者的商标申请尚未获准注册,仍处于初审公告阶段,您可以根据《商标法》三十三条提出商标异议。在此阶段,您需准备充足的证据,如商标使用记录、推广范围、宣传资料及销售合同等,以证实您的针对争议商标具有在先使用权利。二、申请商标无效宣告若抢注者的商标已成功注册,您可以根据《商标法》第四十五条的规定,在商标注册后五年内,向商标评审委员会申请宣告该注册商标无效。这种方法与异议相同,您需要证明对争议商标具有在先权利,也需要证明抢注商标申请注册具有恶意。三、提起三年不使用撤销若抢注商标注册已满三年,且经检索您发现该商标已连续三年无使用,则可以对该抢注商标提起三年不使用撤销。这个方法相较于其他方法来讲,举证责任要求较低,您仅需要提供简单的检索记录,证明该商标未使用即可。四、提起民事诉讼根据现行《民法典》、《商标法》规定,商标行政程序及后续行政诉讼仅解决抢注商...
  • 点击次数: 1000002
    2025 - 03 - 07
    作者:张琳张琳律师历经劳动仲裁、一审、二审等程序,于近日成功办结了一起劳动争议案件,为劳动者争取到了违法解除劳动关系赔偿金、应付未付的工资差额等款项共计三十余万元。 一、基本案情用人单位(以下称YYY分公司,注册地在北京,其总公司的注册地在河北)与劳动者(以下称XXX)签订了劳动合同,约定工作地点为河北、北京及YYY分公司规定的工作地点。XXX在北京安家,在劳动合同履行期间长期在北京工作,偶尔去河北出差,去河北出差时公司给XXX报销差旅费并提供住宿。疫情期间,YYY分公司的总公司及其关联公司通知全体员工公司因经营困难停工停产、全体员工待岗。在YYY分公司的总公司及其关联公司通知全体员工返岗复工时,一并通知XXX所在部门全体员工的工作地点均为河北。XXX客观上无法长期在河北上班,因此明确表示不同意公司单方变更工作地点的决定,仍坚持在北京工作。YYY分公司又向XXX发送了旷工警告函,但XXX仍明确表示不认可该旷工警告并继续在北京工作。YYY分公司就以XXX未去河北返岗复工、无故旷工多日为由,认为XXX严重违反公司规章制度,通知XXX解除劳动合同。XXX遂以YYY分公司违法解除劳动关系、欠付工资等为由,向劳动仲裁机构申请劳动仲裁,要求YYY分公司支付违法解除劳动关系赔偿金、应付未付的工资差额等款项。 二、裁判结果1、劳动仲裁机构、一审法院、二审法院均认为双方签订的劳动合同约定了多个工作地点,过于宽泛,应视为双方对工作地点约定不明。一审法院认定双方就XXX的工作地点达成合意即约定工作地点为北京,劳动仲裁机构和二审法院认定XXX入职后一直在北京工作,应认定劳动合同的实际履行地在北京。2、劳动仲裁机构、一审法院、二审法院均认为YYY分公司因自身原因需要调整XXX工作地点、岗位的,应与XXX协商达成一致,协商不成仍应按原劳动合同履行;而YYY分公司在未经与XXX协商的...
  • 点击次数: 1000002
    2025 - 02 - 28
    作者:金涟伊在经济全球化的今天,跨境贸易日益频繁,与域外企业签订合同已成为商业活动中的常态。然而,不同国家地区的法律制度对合同的签字和盖章效力有着不同的规定,稍有不慎就可能引发法律风险,给企业带来损失。因此在与域外主体签订合同的时候,应当注意确认相关国家地区法律适用,注意域外主体签章的效力,避免因为签章效力瑕疵而导致损失。一、法律体系差异在不同法律体系下,各国对公章效力存在显著差异。大陆法系国家如中国、德国、日本等普遍重视公章(法人章)的法定效力,通常要求公司正式文件必须加盖在政府部门备案的实体公章,同时签字人需通过公司章程明确授予的职务权限或持有书面授权文件,方可产生法律约束力。相比之下,普通法系国家包括美国、英国、新加坡等地更侧重签字的法律效力,公章并不作为法定必备要素,实践中多用于内部文件管理。其核心在于签署人是否经过公司合法授权,只要个人持有董事会决议或授权委托书,即使不盖公章,签字本身即可对公司产生法律约束力。二、重点国家/地区细则1. 美国在美国,合同的效力主要取决于签署人的签字权限。签约时,最好要求域外主体提供公司决议文件(Board Resolution)证明签署权限。此外,部分州还要求对签字进行公证。2. 德国在德国,签字权限通常体现在其主体资格证明上,有些公司有备案的公章,则最好要求其在合同上签字并盖章。3. 日本在日本,合同效力的关键是“代表取缔役”签字,在正式场合,也应当加盖公司印章。因此签约时,最好由域外主体在合同上加盖其在法务局登记过的印章,即圆印。4. 香港地区在香港地区,签字优先于公章。签约时,应当注意公司名称印刷章上必须具有董事签字,仅空白的公司名称印章是没有效力的。而我们常见的“小圆章”通常仅用于行政用途,如签收文件、签收货物、签发收据发票或改错。三、通用签约核查清单总结来说,为了确保合同的有效性,与域外主体签约时应进行以下核查:...
× 扫一扫,关注微信公众号
铭盾MiNGDUN www.mdlaw.cn
Copyright© 2008 - 2025 铭盾京ICP备09063742号-1犀牛云提供企业云服务
X
1

QQ设置

3

SKYPE 设置

4

阿里旺旺设置

5

电话号码管理

6

二维码管理

展开