The practice has its own business reputation and product reputation, crocodile international company does not exist "by lacoste brand reputation, cause consumer confusion, mistake" subjective intent, so alone crocodile crocodile graphics do not constitute a single international company to company single lacoste crocodile trademark graphics tort, namely "only crocodile graphics" also not tort; coupled with the text "CARTELO" and "CARTELO and map" trademarks used in combination, then demonstrates its more significant difference. To sum up, in the text, the existence of "facts are not confounding" between the crocodile international company trademark logo and lacoste trademark logo; historically, crocodile international company trademark logo and lacoste trademark logo has "no confounding" consensus; in use, more "between the crocodile international company trademark logo and lacoste trademark logo not confounding" reality. In Chinese market, through the use of common large-scale, long time, contrast, lacoste series trademark and crocodile international company series trademark has been formed and is still in the increasingly strengthened obtained distinguish their significant, as they increasingly has not significantly difference between the characteristics of confusion. Requests the Institute maintaining adjudgment, rejected the appellant appeals.
In the process of the court, lacoste to prove its appeal, submitted to the Australian trademark registration in October 31, 2008 made application for crocodile international company filed in the country's No. 1005106th, No. 1017333 trademark dismissed that, our company and the crocodile lafours special international related representative part of mail, "excerpts of famous the well-known trademark and the trademark protection system Chinese" one book, the people's Republic of China State Administration for Industry and Commerce and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (referred to as the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board) Business Review words (2009) No. 15729th trademark objection review rulings and announcement, the Trademark Office (2005) 430th different word trademark trademark opposition adjudication (book, 2008 different word no. 10236th) trademark trademark opposition adjudication book and announcements of evidence. And then to the hospital provides the same (Hongkong) crocodile Garment Ltd, Zhejiang Zhongda Crocodile Garment Ltd in the case of the mediation agreement, the "crocodile graphics" in some parts of the country registered and the people's Republic of China in Beijing first intermediate people's Court (2009) a bank at the beginning of the word no. 736th, No. 732nd, administrative verdict the people's Republic of China, Beijing second intermediate people's Court of the second (2009) No. 8129th issued Spain in the early Republican word civil judgment of the people's Republic of China, Guangdong Province, Guangzhou City Intermediate People's Court (2008) spike Sino French people three to end the word no. 116th civil judgment, the people's Republic of China Zhejiang Provincial Higher People's Court (2009) Zhejiang known reference end the word no. fifteenth civil judgment for courts in adjudicating the case.
Crocodile international company to prove its reply, submitted to the Osaka district court verdict in Japan in 1971 and Japan in 1973 1973, the Osaka High Court Mediation in Paris in 2006 in France, the trial court verdict crocodile international company in France France Paris agent trial court case progress report to the College of letters, trademark registration certificate issued by the trademark registration number categories and the statistical abstract crocodile international company has a single crocodile trademarks in some countries and regions and relevant countries, 2 copies of identity letter of 1982 -1983 Nianlakesite company approval letter, the two sides trademark can coexist in 1985 issued by the -1995 Nianlakesite company 7 copies of the acceptance letter and 1985 crocodile International company predecessor Lee Shengmin company, reconciliation agreement signed in 1983 the latter two crocodile trademark in the protocol list of five countries and regions according to the protocol Ming statistics Ming part countries and regions coexist not listed, the Republic of Mauritius. National industrial property December 21, 2007 issued by the trademark ruling confirmed the two sides can coexist, the historical origin that crocodile international company and the Hongkong and Hongkong company and the crocodile crocodile lacoste history document.
According to the evidence submitted by lacoste crocodile international company, published evidence and advice: 1 for Australian Trade Marks Registry ruling, its authenticity, legitimacy, relevance are not recognized, that background of Australia and Chinese opposite. Australia and Europe, and the French have blood or kinship, influenced by European and French big by small influence in Asia and Singapore, lacoste crocodile brand to enter the long and wide use. China instead, affected by the impact of large Asian and Singapore by Europe and the small french. In Chinese, lacoste crocodile trademark in 1980 after long-term not put into commercial scale use, on the contrary, first commercial scale use and well-known international companies prior to the crocodile trademark. Crocodile international company to apply for "CROCODILE and map" trademark is approved in many countries around the world, even in Australia has not approved, can Overgeneralization, in a multi. Between the 2 for the two companies related representative e-mails, that lacoste court can not produce the original, unable to confirm its authenticity, and by mail is not complete and the message in the presence of the key fact date statement error issues that the evidence has obvious signs of forgery, and not for the corresponding notarization and certification procedures but for the authenticity, legitimacy, relevance are not recognized. 3 pairs of lacoste company provides the "well-known trademark and the well-known trademark protection system China excerpts of the book", and 497 pages in the form of authenticity to be recognized, that the evidence is not sufficient to prove the Lacoste trademark has been well-known for its to be evidence of the fact that the authenticity, legitimacy, relevance are not recognised in the at that time. Lacoste company to submit 4 (2008) of the trademark and different word number 10236th trademark opposition adjudication book and announcement of trademarks, trademark different words (2008) No. 10236th trademark opposition adjudication book, (2005) No. 430th "trademark different words Nile crocodile NI LU YU and map" trademark objection orders and Business Review word (2009) 15729th "on the 1653330th 'Nile crocodile NI LU YU and map' trademark objection review ruling" and the relevant trademark search information and announcements of evidence, the ruling that involved in the facts of the case and the case is completely different backgrounds and situations, two cases are not comparable, so the evidence and the case without association.
Evidence material for crocodile international companies submitted, lacoste: cross examination opinions for the 1983, settlement with the case. The specific reasons are: first, shall not apply to this agreement, in China region. In 1983, lacoste company in order to enter the Asian market, signed a reconciliation agreement with crocodile international company predecessor Li people company, to pay the price of $1500000 into the first registered by the five Asian countries, including Singapore, Malaysia area, Taiwan, Brunei, China etc.. The starting point of the agreement is to respect the trademark right as the premise, has the basic rights of people will not agree on the infringement only through consultation. Second, the agreement is the premise of the trademark under approximation of reconciliation. The agreement "confusion" is for the two sides itself, its essence is the right person for approval and consent. Whether the public confusion as an objective fact is not by others in a contract. Third, the agreement is to solve the problem of coexistence of countries of registration, area have been crocodile international company, trademark registration scope and lacoste company has nothing to do. Fourth, the agreement mentioned cooperation intention is only for trademark counterfeiting issues are concerned, not involving trademark coexistence problem. A crocodile international company on its outside the Treaty of some countries and regions have registered a single crocodile trademark fact, lacoste company believes that, in the aftermath of the 1983 agreement disputes about the crocodile trademark is still the case solution principle. From the international scope, lacoste company "crocodile trademark graphics alone" as early as the crocodile international companies for the first time that have registered trademark applications in a number of countries, including Chinese several decades ago, and the crocodile international company is only a few countries in Asia area to be registered. Both registered in the crocodile trademark use of never take different solutions according to the specific situation. But, before the lawsuit, whether it is Chinese or foreign, crocodile international companies never according to the 1983 settlement agreement put forward the proposition crocodile trademark global coexistence. In different countries the litigation, are also in accordance with the principle of territoriality and trademark are judged on both sides in the specific country specific trademark, not influenced by foreign factors.
