The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) recently issued a substantial modification to its initial determination in the Sino Legend (Zhangjiagang) Chemical Co., Ltd. and SI Group Inc. intellectual property case. The Commission ruled that the majority of SI Group’s alleged business secrets are not protectable. The ITC also struck down the originally recommended general exclusion order. 

In the nine years after SI Group entered China, the legal war between the two sides has never stopped.

At the end of 2008, SI Group reported to the Shanghai Public Security Bureau Economic Criminal Investigation General Unit, alleging that Sino Legend illegally took its business secrets by hiring their former staff. After nearly a year long survey, the investigation held that Sino Legend has not taken business secrets.

In 2010, SI Group filed a lawsuit against Sino Legend at Shanghai No.2 Intermediate People’s Court. SI Group alleges that Sino Legend has illegally taken SI Group business secrets. As the case went on, in March 2011, SI Group withdrew the initial case and immediately re-filed a new lawsuit. In May 2013, SI Group withdrew the case again, but was rejected by the Shanghai court. 

After failing to obtain relief in China, SI Group filed its ITC complaint in May 2012 against Sino Legend, alleging that Sino Legend misappropriated its business secrets, and requested ITC issue an excluding order and a permanent cease and desist order. 

At the end of January 2014, ITC ruled that the majority of SI Group’s alleged business secrets are not protectable, and struck down the originally recommended general exclusion order. The ITC also rejected SI’s request to exclude Sino Legend SL-1805 and SL-7015 resins from U.S. import.

SI Group is a leading global developer and manufacturer of chemical intermediates, specialty resins, and solutions, while Sino Legend is the largest producer in this field in Asia. In less than six years after beginning full-scale production, Sino Legend has become the largest Asian manufacturer of resins for the tire and rubber industries, holding 70 percent of the Chinese market and 30 percent share for the rest of Asia.
(by Zhu Wenming)

The Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court recently entered the first-instance judgment on a trademark dispute lodged by the German SCHOFFEL sportswear co., LTD, a well-known outdoor clothing brand. Established in 1804, German SCHOFFEL has built its corporate image in German, Switzerland and Austria markets due to their novel design and high quality. 

On October 2006, German SCHOFFEL filed the No. 5667931 SCHOFFEL and No. 5667932 Schoffel and its figures as trademarks, certified on products of waterproof garment, clothes, mountaineering wears, shoes, hats, and socks. However, the Trademark Office (TMO), under the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC), denied German SCHOFFEL’s filings, on the grounds of similarity with Shenzhen Fujing Trading Company’s registered mark “Schoffel” and an individual’s, Wang Liangyou’s, registered mark “SCHOFFEL”. 

On May 2004, Shenzhen Fujing filed the No. 4074833 Schoffel as trademark on Class 25. Three months later, Wang Liangyou submitted applications for No. 4202987 SCHOFFEL filings on Class 25. All these applications were approved by TMO. 

The German SCHOFFEL then challenged TMO’s decisions and requested the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) revoke the above-mentioned applications. However, TRAB denied German SCHOFFEL’s requests. Disgruntled German SCHOFFEL brought the case to the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court. 

The court held that the two marks Schoffel and SCHOFFEL have small differences and that would cause confusion among customers and similarity was constituted. Meanwhile, the materials and evidences provided by German SCHOFFEL failed to prove that their marks have enjoyed high popularity and steady market share and upheld TRAB’s decision. 
(By Yang Liu)

http://www.cipnews.com.cn/showArticle_syzk.asp?Articleid=30316