- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Mitsubishi Electric wins trademark infringement lawsuit against factory-automation product counterfeiters in China
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation announced that the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court has upheld an earlier ruling in Mitsubishi Electric’s favor regarding infringement of the company’s trademarks by Guangzhou Lingye Automation Equipment, Guangzhou Longyan Automation Technology, Guangzhou Ouye Automation Technology and their owners located in Guangzhou, Guangdong Province,...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation announced that the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court has upheld an earlier ruling in Mitsubishi Electric’s favor regarding infringement of the company’s trademarks by Guangzhou Lingye Automation Equipment, Guangzhou Longyan Automation Technology, Guangzhou Ouye Automation Technology and their owners located in Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China.
According to a Press Release by Mitsubishi Electric, the defendants manufactured and sold a large quantity of dead copy products, including PLCs, AC servos, inverters and other factory-automation equipment bearing counterfeit Mitsubishi trademarks, beginning in around 2012. The defendants were convicted of illegally manufacturing and selling these products in May 2016, after which Mitsubishi Electric sued the defendants for trademark infringement and won the case.
It further stated that Mitsubishi Electric will continue to take strict measures against manufacturers of counterfeit products through the detection, and application of legal measures to protect its brand value, so that customers may continue to use its products with peace of mind.
The Court has ordered the defendants to pay compensation of 2.66 million RMB in damages and must issue a public statement in which they admit their wrongdoing and apologize for the harm they caused by producing counterfeit products that infringed on Mitsubishi Electric’s trademarks (published in Guangdong daily newspaper on September 1, 2020).