扫二微码
资讯中心

我们归纳整理了一下最近美国联邦地区法院判决的情况,供各位跨境电商卖家在知识产权诉讼和和解中参考:

In recent similar cases in this District, courts have entered summary judgment in favor of the trademark owners, found willful infringement, and awarded substantial statutory damage awards exceeding $100,000 even though there were minimal sales – see below.

在本地区最近的类似案件中,法院作出了有利于商标所有人的简易判决,认定故意侵权,并判给超过10万美元的巨额法定损害赔偿,即使有极少的销售额--见下文。

Volkswagen AG, et al. v. IMAN36r5-USA., 18-cv-6611 (N.D. Ill. Feb 28, 2020) (summary judgment granted for offer for sale of counterfeit Audi logo light and awarding $75,000);

Volkswagen AG等人诉IMAN36r5-USA.,18-cv-6611(N.D.Ill.2020年2月28日)(对提供销售假冒奥迪标志灯的行为给予简易判决,并判给7.5万美元)。

Entertainment One UK Ltd. v. 2012shiliang, et al., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74157 (N.D. Ill. May 2, 2019) (summary judgment granted for using Peppa Pig in item title and awarding $100,000 for two represented sales);

Entertainment One UK Ltd.诉2012shiliang等人案,2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74157(N.D. Ill.2019年5月2日)(因在商品标题中使用Peppa Pig而获得简易判决,并就两次代理销售判给10万美元)。

Volkswagen AG, et al. v. hkseller*2011, et al., 18-cv-7621 (N.D. Ill. May 6, 2019) (summary judgment granted for offer for sale of counterfeit Audi logo light and awarding $200,000);

Volkswagen AG等人诉hkseller*2011等人,18-cv-7621(N.D.Ill.2019年5月6日)(因要约销售假冒奥迪车标灯而获得简易判决,并判给20万美元)。

H-D U.S.A., LLC v. Guangzhou Tomas Crafts Co., et al., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207613 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 18, 2017) (declining to reduce asset restraint, entering summary judgment and awarding $150,000 in statutory damages, noting “the fact that defendant’s counterfeiting took place online favors a higher statutory damages award because online counterfeiting can reach a much wider audience than counterfeiting through a physical store.”);

H-D U.S.A.,LLC v. Guangzhou Tomas Crafts Co.,et al.,2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207613(N.D. Ill. Dec.18,2017)(拒绝减少资产限制,作出简易判决,并判给15万美元的法定损害赔偿,指出 "被告的造假行为发生在网上,这有利于判给更高的法定损害赔偿,因为与通过实体店造假相比,网上造假可以覆盖更广泛的受众")。

NBA Properties, Inc., et al. v. Yan Zhou, et al., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148971 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 14, 2017) (awarding $150,000 in statutory damages, finding unpersuasive defendant’s claim that they were “unfamiliar with Plaintiffs’ trademarks, that they never physically handled the counterfeit merchandise, and that they only made minimal sales.”);

NBA Properties, Inc.等人诉Yan Zhou, et al., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148971 (N.D. Ill.2017年9月14日)(判给15万美元的法定损害赔偿,认为被告声称他们 "对原告的商标不熟悉,他们从未实际处理过假冒商品,而且他们只做了极少的销售 "的说法没有说服力)。

Luxottica USA LLC v. The Partnerships, et al., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29999 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 2, 2017) (summary judgment and awarding $100,000 in statutory damages “because [defendant] advertised [counterfeit goods] on the internet, allowing for distribution far greater than if it sold the hats in a brick-and-mortar store.”);

Luxottica USA LLC v. The Partnerships, et al., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29999 (N.D. Ill. Mar.2, 2017)(简易判决并判处100,000美元的法定损害赔偿,"因为[被告]在互联网上宣传[假冒商品],允许的销售量远远大于在实体店销售帽子。")。

Luxottica Group S.p.A. v. Hao Li, et al. and Richemont International SA, et al. v. Luo Liang, et al., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21818 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 15, 2017) (summary judgment and awarding $120,000 in statutory damages and attorney fees for use of WAYFARER in item title and offering to sell earrings bearing a counterfeit VCA Alhambra trademark);

Luxottica Group S.p.A.诉李浩等人和Richemont International SA等人诉罗亮等人,2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21818(N.D. Ill.2017年2月15日)(因在商品名称中使用WAYFARER并提供销售印有假冒VCA Alhambra商标的耳环而作出简易判决并判处12万美元的法定损害赔偿和律师费)。

River Light V, L.P. and Tory Burch LLC v. Zhangyali, et al., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111301 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 22, 2016) (summary judgment and awarding $100,000 for one infringed mark and finding that defendant acted with “reckless indifference to the trademark owner’s rights” by failing to perform due diligence of its product listings);

River Light V, L.P. and Tory Burch LLC v. Zhangyali, et al., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111301 (N.D. Ill.2016年8月22日)(简易判决并判给一个侵权商标10万美元,并认定被告的行为是 "轻率地漠视商标所有人的权利",没有对其产品列表进行尽职调查)。

Monster Energy Company v. Chen Wensheng, et al., 15-cv-4166 (N.D. Ill. June 30, 2016) (Docket Entry No. 137) (summary judgment and awarding $1 million in statutory damages despite zero represented sales);

Monster Energy Company v. Chen Wensheng, et al., 15-cv-4166 (N.D. Ill.2016年6月30日)(Docket Entry No. 137)(即时判决,并判处100万美元的法定损害赔偿,尽管代表销售额为零)。

Bulgari, S.p.A. v. Zou Xiaohong, et al., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140606, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2015) (summary judgment and awarding $100,000 for three represented sales);

Bulgari, S.p.A. v. Zou Xiaohong, et al., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140606, at *7 (N.D. Ill.2015年10月15日)(简易判决,并判给三个代理销售10万美元)。

Luxottica USA LLC v. The Partnerships, et al., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78961, at *7-10 (N.D. Ill. June 18, 2015) (summary judgment and awarding $150,000 for three infringed marks, holding that even though there was no evidence submitted that defendant was a “large-scale counterfeiter,” defendant’s online sale of counterfeit goods made plaintiff’s actual losses difficult to calculate and justified a substantial award);

Luxottica USA LLC v. The Partnerships, et al., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78961, at *7-10 (N.D. Ill. June 18, 2015)(简易判决并判给三个侵权商标15万美元,认为即使没有提交证据证明被告是 "大规模的造假者",但被告在网上销售假货的行为使得原告的实际损失难以计算,有理由判给巨额赔偿)。

从上面美国联邦地区法院的判决中可以看出, 当被告没有证据证明自己是非故意侵权的时候,法院一般都会判决,其为故意侵权赔偿的数额也从10万美金到100万美金不等。但这中间有一个判决,7.5万美金的,有可能是案件的事实,还有证据方面的考量。只对广大跨境电商卖家来讲,及时的作出判断,选择和解或者应诉非常重要。如果卖家根据自己的证据判断出确实有侵权或者说商标或者说图形,跟原告的品牌具有非常大的相似性,尽快选择和解才是王道。但如果确实原告起诉错误,或者说打擦边球非常明显,那么选择因素的话,成功率也是比较高的,我们这边有一些成功的案例。专业的人做专业的事情,跨境电商一站式服务还是要选择我们!


资讯中心
  • 2021-09相关报道
    跨境知识产权韭菜生存指南——一文了解知识产权侵权的前因后果
  • 2021-07相关报道
    跨境侵权案件观察:3月17日--3月19日
  • 2021-07相关报道
    2020年跨境电商十大典型投诉案例披露
  • 2021-07相关报道
    注册美国公司对跨境电商卖家有哪些好处?
  • 2021-07相关报道
    案件观察:3月10日--3月12日
  • 2021-07相关报道
    亚马逊侵权分为哪几种?亚马逊产品侵权要如何处理?
  • 2021-07相关报道
    亚马逊又发新规!这项指标超过5,账户可能被停用