A

utolite and AUTOLITE are identical in pronunciation and letter composition and the only difference is that the latter is capitalized, which causes the confusion of the public to both trademarks. Thus, Honeywell International Inc. (below referred to as “plaintiff”) brought a case to the court against Wenzhou M & C Foreign Trade Co., Ltd. (below referred to as “defendant”). Recently, Shanghai 1^st Intermediate Court held that the defendant should immediately cease the infringing action, and make compensation for the economic loss of the plaintiff in the amount of RMB 80,000 (approx. $1067).

 

The plaintiff is one of the 500 Top Enterprises of the World, which provides partial products for the space plans of America, and enjoys a solid reputation within the professional field. The plaintiff is the registrant of the trademark “AUTOLITE”, and the spark plugs with this brand are its well-known products. In September of 1998, the trademark was permitted to be registered by China Trademark Office. In March of 2007, Shanghai Customs detained the defendant’s spark plugs intended to export to Nigeria, which were considered to infringe the trademark right of the plaintiff to the trademark “AUTOLITE” after investigation. Thereafter the defendant’s spark plugs were confiscated by the Customs and the defendant was fined in the amount of RMB 63000. The court fetched confiscated spark plugs, and confirmed that the trademark “Autolite” was marked on both the products and their packages.

The court held that the plaintiff is the registrant of the trademark “AUTOLITE” and has the exclusive right to this trademark according to the law. The defendant used the mark “Autolite” on the same kind of goods without the plaintiff’s permission, which infringed the plaintiff’s exclusive trademark right. However, the defendant’s products declared for exportation had been seized and confiscated by the Customs. Thus, the plaintiff has not suffered any loss due to reduction of market shares, while the defendant has not obtained any profits from infringing products. Thus, the court decided that the defendant should make compensation to the plaintiff in the amount of RMB80, 000 based on reasonable expense for stopping the infringement action of the defendant.