Recently, lawyer Zhang Hong and lawyer Xu Jin represented Sephora in its litigation against Sephora Biotechnology Co., Ltd. of a city, for trademark infringement and unfair competition. The case was concluded at Guangzhou Yuexiu District People’s Court and the litigation claim of our client, Sephora, was fully supported.

Sephora is a chain of free-choice cosmetic stored owned by the no. 1 luxury conglomerate LVMH and has about 2000 chain stores in 26 countries or regions around the world. It is called the “world’s cosmetics-retailing authority”. On December 18th 2011, the defendant, Sephora Biotechnology Co., Ltd. of a city, arbitrarily obtained the industrial and commercial registration for “Sephora” as its business name on operation items including “wholesales, retails; cosmetics”, without authorization. Furthermore, the defendant used “Sephora” as trademark in the website www.sephoracn.cn it ran and commercial activities such as product packaging. 

Guangzhou Yuexiu District People’s Court ruled as follows according the laws:

1. The defendant should immediately stop its infringement on the plaintiff, Sephora’s right to exclusively use the no. 4059185 “Sephora” registered trademark;

2. The defendant should immediately stop its infringement on the plaintiff, Sephora’s right to exclusively use the no. 4059187 “Sephora” registered trademark;

3. The defendant should immediately stop its unfair competition actions that infringe the business names “Sifulan” and “Sephora” owned by the plaintiff, Sephora;

4. The defendant, Sephora Biotechnology Co., Ltd. of a city should applied to administrative departments of industry and commerce to change its business name within the 30 days since this ruling has come into force. The new name shall not include the word “Sephora”;

5. The defendant pays the compensation of 150,000 RMB to Sephora for its economic losses.

This case was meaningful as model example.

The Court gave the following ruling after the trial: “Sephora” was a fabricated word and possessed high distinctiveness itself. By registering the name “Sephora”, which already had high reputation, as its business name, the defendant showed bad intention of exploiting the business name of the plaintiff. Although the business name of the defendant received industrial and commercial registration, the action of registering and using this business name itself was inappropriate and violated the principle of justice, honesty and credibility for civil activities. Even if the defendant did not centralize the use of its business name, it was still inevitable for the use itself to cause confusion in the market and to disturb the normal order of competition in the market, constituting an unfair competition. According to the laws, the defendant bore the civil responsibilities of cessation of infringement and compensating for losses. The defendant was therefore ruled to apply to administrative departments of industry and commerce to change its business name within the 30 days since this ruling has come into force. The new name shall not include the word “Sephora”.

Under the frequent occurrence of cases in which famous brands are exploited by the registration of their company names for trademark infringement and unfair competition, this case successfully used legal approach to fulfill of the purpose of ordering the opposite side to change business name and stop infringing. The case protected lawful rights of the client and offered certain guidance for the processing of similar cases in the future.