SUNHOLD Law Firm, appointed by the Antai College of Economics and Management, SJTU, successfully assisted the SJTU in Second-Instance Judgment Reversal for Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Case. The Shandong Provincial High People's Court recently made a final judgment in the case of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (hereinafter referred to as "SJTU") vs. Jinan Gaoyan Education Information Consulting Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Gaoyan Company") and Guo Yong, altering the original judgment to hold Guo Yong personally liable for compensation. This case was handled by the SUNHOLD Law Firm's team led by senior partner Tao Guonan, along with partners Tao Yonggang and Li Jiani, who participated throughout the case handling process. We would like to express our gratitude for the trust placed in us by the Antai College of Economics and Management, SJTU. Fortunately, we have lived up to this trust. The prevail in this case has effectively curbed the trademark infringement and unfair competition behavior of "piggybacking on prestigious universities", and strongly safeguarded the intellectual property value and brand reputation of this century-old institution.
| Case Overview |
Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Lead to Litigation
As one of China's top universities, SJTU has a rich historical heritage and extensive academic influence. Its registered trademarks, including "Shanghai Jiaoda", enjoy high recognition in the educational sector. However, in recent years, SJTU discovered that Gaoyan Company had been using unauthorized marks similar to those of SJTU on its website, We Chat public accounts, and offline EMBA course promotions. The company also claimed that its courses relied on the educational resources of SJTU, misleading consumers.
SUNHOLD Law Firm was appointed by the Antai College of Economics and Management, SJTU to handle this case. SJTU believed that Gaoyan Company's actions not only infringed upon its exclusive right to use a trademark, but also constituted unfair competition, severely damaging the university's reputation and legitimate rights. Consequently, Shanghai Jiao Tong sued Gaoyan Company and its legal representative Guo Yong, demanding cessation of infringement, elimination of impact, and compensation for economic losses.
First-Instance Judgment:
Infringement Determination and Compensation Dispute
In the first instance, the Jinan Intermediate People's Court ruled that Gaoyan Company's use of marks similar to those of SJTU on its website, We Chat public accounts, and offline operations constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition. The court ordered Gaoyan Company to cease the infringement and compensate SJTU with a total of 600,000 RMB for economic losses and reasonable expenses. However, the court did not support SJTU's claim that Guo Yong personally constituted joint infringement with Gaoyan Company, deeming that it is believed that Guo Yong's actions were acts in the course of employment and the responsibility should be borne by Gaoyan Company.
SJTU disagreed with the first instance judgment, arguing that Guo Yong had engaged in infringement activities before the establishment of Gaoyan Company and continued to participate in such activities after its establishment. The university claimed that Guo Yong's actions were not merely acts in the course of employment and should be jointly liable for compensation with Gaoyan Company. Consequently, SJTU appealed to the Shandong Provincial High People's Court.
Second-Instance Judgment Reversal :
Lawyers' Evidence Collection Facilitates Successful Rights Protection
In the second instance, the Shandong Provincial High People's Court carefully reviewed the evidence submitted by the lawyer team. The court found that the evidence provided by the lawyer team was sufficient to prove that Guo Yong had engaged in infringement activities both before and after the establishment of Gaoyan Company. His actions constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition, and he was not merely acting in his capacity as an employee but should bear individual liability for the infringement alongside Gaoyan Company.
Ultimately, the Shandong Provincial High People's Court made a final judgment, overturning the part of the first instance judgment that exempted Guo Yong from liability. The court ordered Guo Yong to immediately cease the infringement and compensate SJTU with a total of 500,000 RMB for economic losses and reasonable expenses, while Gaoyan Company was ordered to compensate SJTU with 100,000 RMB. This judgment reflects the strict protection of intellectual property rights and highlights the importance of compelling evidence collection in the case handling process.
| Key Points in Handling the Case |
Compelling Evidence Locks Down Individual Infringement
In cases involving intellectual property, evidence is the cornerstone of the plaintiff's claim. Particularly in this case, due to the long duration of the infringer's actions and the scattered nature of the infringement clues across different platforms, it was challenging to identify the infringer.
SUNHOLD Law Firm, appointed by the Antai College of Economics and Management, SJTU, demonstrated high professionalism and rigorous work attitude during the case handling. The acting lawyer is well aware that to prove Guo Yong's personal liability for infringement, it is necessary to restore the truth through compelling evidence .
The lawyer team conducted comprehensive and meticulous investigations and evidence collection. They used various methods, including notarization of evidence preservation and electronic data collection via the "Right Guardian" app, to secure a large amount of critical evidence. These pieces of evidence showed that Guo Yong had used marks similar to those of Shanghai Jiao Tong on his personal website and We Chat public account before the establishment of Gaoyan Company. After the company was established, Guo Yong continued to post infringing content on his personal accounts and the company's platform, and the course fee collection accounts were linked to Guo Yong personally.
The lawyers systematically organized and analyzed the infringement evidence, forming a complete evidence chain that fully demonstrated Guo Yong's long-term and continuous involvement in infringement activities. His actions were not merely job-related but were part of the joint infringement activities with Gaoyan Company. These solid pieces of evidence laid a solid foundation for the reversal in the second instance.
| Significance of the Case |
Intellectual Property Protection and the Role of Lawyers Highlighted
This case is a typical example of a trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute, with significant exemplary significance. SUNHOLD Law Firm, appointed by the Antai College of Economics and Management, SJTU, assists SJTU in second-instance judgment reversal for trademark infringement and unfair competition case. As a renowned university, SJTU’s trademarks and reputation are strictly protected by law. The infringement activities of Gaoyan Company and Guo Yong not only harmed the university's legitimate rights and interests but also disrupted the normal market order of the education industry. Through the trial of this case, the court legally punished the infringement activities, safeguarded SJTU’s exclusive trademark rights and commercial reputation, and established a good judicial precedent for intellectual property protection.
The case also highlights the important role of lawyers in intellectual property cases. The lawyer team, with their professional legal literacy and rigorous work attitude, successfully locked down the defendant's infringement activities through extensive and compelling evidence collection, providing strong support for SJTU’s rights protection. This not only safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of the parties involved but also contributed significantly to the cause of intellectual property protection.
In today's increasingly important context of intellectual property protection, this case's judgment reminds enterprises and individuals to respect others' intellectual property rights and operate legally and compliantly. It also encourages rights holders to actively seek legal remedies to protect their interests through professional legal services, ensuring that infringement activities are exposed and intellectual property rights are fully protected.
