In Guangzhou Hongfu company & Xinghewan comapny v. Tianjin Hongxing trademark infringement case, which was publicly announced by the Supreme Court as one of the directive IP cases that all courts shall follow, the Supreme Court made some amendments on trademark infringement on real estate service field, breaking regional restrictions used in previous trademark infringement cases on property service.  

Guangzhou Hongfu Company& Xinghewan comapny sued Tianjin Hongxing for infringement to prior registered marks No. 1946396 “星河湾&Star River” on service “management of real estate” in class 36 and same mark on service “construction of real estate” in class 37. Before initiating the infringement lawsuit, the prior registered marks has been well known in Guangdong province through using by the plaintiff.

In the first instance heard by Intermediate Court of Tianjin City, the plaintiff’s pleading was rejected on the ground as follows.

1. The defendant’s products “real estate”, on which no one shall apply for registration according to regulations issued by China Trademark Office, is dissimilar to the plaintiff’s service, and that there is no likelihood for customers’ confusion to the defendant’s real estate products for the high price of real estate and customers’ high attention to recognize origin of real estate products.

2. The plaintiff’s prior marks are not famous in the infringement area.

Guangzhou Hongfu & Xinghewan Company appealed the decision before Tianjin Higher Court and then Supreme Court.  Supreme Court overturned previous court decisions and held different views on the focus issues:

“sale of real estate” provided by Hongxing is considered as similar to service “management and construction of real estate” provided by the plaintiff on the grounds that there is specific relationship1. between them in aspects of functions, customers and sale channel, etc.

2. Due to efficient and convenient flow of information in modern society and the plaintiff’s possible business plan of selling series of real estate bearing the registered marks in different areas in China, use of the registered mark on property name will cause market confusion even though the plaintiff’s prior registered marks are only well know in Guangdong province.

Based on the above grounds, considering that the plaintiff had not stepped into Tianjin market and good faith of using the mark by the defendant, the defendant was ruled to pay damages of CNY 100,000 (around 15 thousand and four hundred USD dollars).

Through this case, we could learn an updated important message on trademark in real estate field, that using property name which is identical or similar to prior registered mark by other real estate developer might be ruled as infringement.