Judicial Regulation of Cross-Class Protection for Well-Known Trademarks - Schneider Electric (China) v. Schneider Valve (Tianjin)
Published 15 May 2026
Sarah Xuan
In February 2026, the Tianjin No. 3 Intermediate People’s Court rendered a civil judgment of first instance regarding a dispute over trademark infringement and unfair competition between Schneider Electric (China) Co., Ltd. and Schneider Valve (Tianjin) Co., Ltd., Shi Liting, and Hong Qingyang. The case revolved around whether the use of commercial marks such as “Schneider” and “施耐德” in valve products and related business activities constituted an infringement of the exclusive rights to registered trademarks held by Schneider Electric (China) Co., Ltd., and whether the use of the word “施耐德” in the defendant’s corporate name constituted unfair competition.
The court ultimately found that the involved Trademark No. G715396 “Schneider Electric & Device” and Trademark No. 1493717 “施耐德电气” had reached well-known status for goods such as circuit breakers and switches. The defendant, Schneider Valve (Tianjin) Co., Ltd., used marks such as “Schneider” and “施耐德阀业” in valve product promotion, its official website, social media accounts, and domain names, which was sufficient to cause the relevant public to mistakenly believe that a specific connection existed with the Schneider company, thereby constituting trademark infringement and unfair competition. The court ordered the defendant to cease the infringement and unfair competition, and to pay compensation for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 550,000 RMB; however, because the plaintiff failed to prove that the company’s shareholders had abused the independent legal personality of the corporation and the limited liability of shareholders, the court did not support the request for Shi Liting and Hong Qingyang to bear joint and several liability.
Against the background where the accused goods were neither identical nor similar to the goods for which the registered trademarks were approved for use, this case provided a relatively comprehensive judicial determination regarding cross-class protection of well-known trademarks, infringing use of corporate names, confusing use of domain names, and the boundaries of shareholder liability. This reflects the comprehensive grasp of the relationship between trademark protection and the maintenance of market competition order by the people’s courts in intellectual property trials, and also reflects current judicial practice’s approach to regulating “free-riding” and “brand-imitation” behaviors through the dual paths of trademark law and unfair competition law. The following is a specific analysis of this case.
I. Case Background The plaintiff in this case, Schneider Electric (China) Co., Ltd., was established in 1995 and is a major operating entity for Schneider Electric brands in the Chinese market. Schneider company and its affiliates have long operated in China’s electrical equipment field and hold registered trademarks including Trademark No. G715396 “Schneider Electric & Device” and Trademark No. 1493717 “施耐德电气”. Among them, Trademark No. G715396 is approved for use on goods in Class 9, including electrical and electronic apparatus and instruments; Trademark No. 1493717 is approved for use on Class 9 goods such as high and low voltage switchboards, electric switches, distribution boxes, circuit breakers, and transformers. The court found that before the defendant was established, Schneider company and its affiliates had established enterprises with “Schneider” as their trade name in many places in China, and relevant products possessed high reputation in the electrical field; Trademark No. G715396 “Schneider Electric & Device” had also previously been recognized by the national trademark authority as a well-known trademark used on circuit breakers, switches, and contactors.
The defendant, Schneider Valve (Tianjin) Co., Ltd., was established in 2020, with a business scope including the sale of valves and cocks, manufacture of ordinary valves and cocks, technology import and export, cargo import and export, and the sale of pumps and vacuum equipment. Evidence collected by the plaintiff showed that the defendant used the text “Official Website of Schneider Valve (China) Co., Ltd”. on its official website and displayed commercial marks through the vertical combination of the English “Schneider” and the Chinese “施耐德阀业”, while also advertising “products and technology from France”. The defendant also used marks such as “SCHNEIDERVALVE”, “Schneider”, “施耐德阀业”, and “Schneidervalves” in website news headlines, product introductions, Douyin accounts, WeChat video accounts, and on some product packaging displays. During the trial, the defendant admitted that the involved website, Douyin account, and WeChat video account were all owned by it.
Consequently, this case presented typical characteristics of a composite commercial mark dispute: the accused acts did not occur solely on product packaging or during the corporate name registration phase, but simultaneously covered corporate names, website domain names, official website pages, social media accounts, short video content, and product promotion across multiple commercial scenarios. Based on this, the plaintiff requested the court to order the defendant to cease using the relevant marks, cease using the relevant domain names, change the corporate name containing the word “施耐德”, and compensate for losses; the defendant primarily argued that its corporate name was registered and approved, the product categories of the two parties were different, the plaintiff failed to prove malice or loss, and the shareholders should not bear joint and several liability.
II. Disputed Issues and Trial The court summarized the disputed issues of this case into three aspects: first, whether the defendant implemented acts that infringed upon the exclusive rights to the registered trademarks involved; second, whether the defendant implemented acts of unfair competition; third, if trademark infringement or unfair competition is established, how the liable subjects and civil liabilities should be determined. The court deliberated on these issues as follows:
(1) Application of Cross-Class Protection for Well-Known Trademarks The court first confirmed that the goods for which the involved registered trademarks were approved for use were neither identical nor similar to the goods on which the accused marks were used. Therefore, if the plaintiff requested cross-class protection, it was necessary for the people’s court to examine whether the involved trademarks constituted well-known trademarks. This treatment conforms to the basic principle of “determination upon necessity” in the judicial protection of well-known trademarks—that is, an individual examination of a trademark’s well-known status is conducted only when absolutely necessary for the handling of the case.
In the specific determination, the court comprehensively considered the registration time of the involved trademarks, continuous usage, scope of publicity, market reputation, previous records of well-known protection, and the business accumulation of the right holder’s relevant enterprises in the Chinese market. Trademark No. G715396 was approved for registration in China as early as 1999; Schneider company and its affiliates have long operated in the electrical field, and the relevant brands have formed high reputation for goods such as circuit breakers and switches through continuous promotion and market use. The court ultimately determined that before the defendant was established, the involved registered trademarks already possessed high market reputation and widespread influence for circuit breakers and switches, becoming well-known trademarks familiar to the relevant public. This determination laid the foundation for subsequent cross-class protection and reflected the normative boundaries of well-known trademark protection. The court did not naturally expand the scope of protection simply because the Schneider brand had high reputation; rather, based on the differences in product categories, the manner in which the accused marks were used, and the possibility of confusion, it examined the well-known status as needed to determine whether cross-class protection should be granted.
(2) Judicial Confirmation of the Correspondence between Chinese and English Commercial Marks In this case, the court’s confirmation of the corresponding relationship between “Schneider” and “施耐德” was a crucial link in the judicial logic.
The Court stated in its judgment: “In the course of Schneider company’s long-term use and extensive promotion of its brands and goods, the distinctive part ‘Schneider’ of the ‘SchneiderElectric & Device’ trademark has established a fixed translation and a one-to-one correspondence with the Chinese characters ‘施耐德’ among relevant consumers in China. A stable connection has been established between its products and trademarks. This series of trademarks possesses a high degree of reputation and influence within the industry and on the relevant goods. Furthermore, the identity between its registered trademarks and its corporate trade name has further enhanced the distinctiveness of the trademarks.”
The court held that during the long-term use and extensive promotion of the brand and products by Schneider company, the distinctive part of the “Schneider Electric & Device” trademark, “Schneider”, had formed a fixed translation and a one-to-one correspondence with the Chinese characters “施耐德” among relevant consumers in China, and its products and trademarks had established a stable connection. This judgment indicates that in determining trademark similarity, the likelihood of confusion, and the scope of protection for well-known trademarks, the people’s court may proceed from the actual perception of the relevant public and incorporate the stable corresponding relationship formed between foreign language marks and Chinese translations into its consideration.
(3) Determination of Trademark Use on Non-Similar Goods Trademark law does not regulate all uses of words or symbols, but rather the use of marks to identify the source of goods or services. In this case, the marks used by the defendant often appeared in combination with industry-descriptive words such as “valve industry” (阀业) or “valves”. The question was whether such combinations still constituted trademark use and whether they might infringe upon the interests of the involved well-known trademarks.
The Court stated in its judgment: “Pursuant to Article 1 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes Involving Trademarks, the act of reproducing, imitating, or translating another person’s registered well-known trademark or its principal part for use as a trademark on non-identical or non-similar goods, which misleads the public and results in potential damage to the interests of the registrant of such well-known trademark, shall constitute an act that ‘causes other damages to another person’s exclusive right to a registered trademark’ as prescribed in Item (7) of Article 57 of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China. This Court holds that the use of marks containing the words ‘Schneider’ and ‘施耐德’ by Schneider Valve (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. in the introduction and promotion of its valve products has objectively functioned to identify the source of goods. Such conduct constitutes the use of the principal part of another person’s registered well-known trademark as a trademark on non-identical or non-similar goods as provided under the aforementioned laws. In view of the reputation of the involved trademarks and the Schneider company, as well as the relevance between the accused infringing products and the goods (such as circuit breakers and switches) for which the involved registered trademarks have become well-known—specifically in terms of product functions, application scenarios, consumer targets, and market environments—the accused trademark use is likely to cause the relevant public to mistakenly believe that a special connection exists between Schneider Valve (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. and its products and the Schneider company, thereby constituting an infringement of the exclusive rights to the registered trademarks held by the Schneider company.”
The court held that when Schneider Valve Tianjin company used words such as “Schneider” and “施耐德” in the introduction and promotion of valve products, it objectively functioned to identify the source of the goods, constituting an act of reproducing the main part of another’s registered well-known trademark and using it as a trademark on non-identical or non-similar goods. An operator cannot claim that its use constitutes legitimate descriptive use merely because it appends a general industry term, a product name, or a description of a business field after another’s well-known trademark. As long as the combined mark is used prominently in a commercial scenario and is sufficient for consumers to identify it as the source of goods or the source of a business entity, it may constitute use in the trademark sense.
Furthermore, the addition of industry-descriptive words sometimes does not reduce the likelihood of confusion but may instead strengthen the relevant public’s misperception of brand extension or authorized cooperation. For example, the combination of “Schneider” and “valves” to form “schneidervalves” easily leads the public to understand it as “Schneider Valves” or “Schneider brand valves”; the combination of “施耐德” and “阀业” to form “施耐德阀业” may also cause the relevant public to mistakenly believe that the enterprise is an affiliate or an authorized entity of Schneider company in the valve field.
The court also considered the relevance between valve products and the circuit breakers and switches on which the involved trademarks are well-known, in terms of product functions, application scenarios, consumer targets, and market environment. Although the two are not similar goods under trademark classification, they may face similar professional consumer groups in scenarios such as industrial control, energy management, infrastructure construction, and engineering procurement, and may appear together in industrial system solutions. It is precisely this commercial relevance that makes it easier for the relevant public to mistakenly perceive a specific connection. Accordingly, the court determined that the accused trademark use constituted an infringement of the exclusive rights to the registered trademarks involved.
(4) Trademark Infringement Constituted by Domain Name Use The defendant used “schneidervalves.com” as its official website domain name and displayed company introductions, product centers, news information, and major achievements through this website. On the surface, a domain name is an internet access address, but in commercial activities, it often functions to identify a business entity, point to the source of goods, and carry a brand image. Especially when a domain name contains the main identifying part of another’s trademark with high reputation, the risk of confusion should not be underestimated.
Based on the provisions concerning domain name infringement in the judicial interpretations of trademark civil disputes, the court held that registering a word identical or similar to another’s registered trademark as a domain name and conducting relevant commodity transactions or commercial promotion through that domain name, in a manner that easily causes confusion among the relevant public, constitutes an act of causing other damages to another’s exclusive rights to a registered trademark. In this case, “schneidervalves.com” is composed of “schneider” and “valves”, where “Schneider” is an important identifying part of the involved well-known trademark and “valves” points directly to the valve products operated by the defendant. This combination not only fails to effectively distinguish the commercial source but may instead cause the relevant public to understand the defendant’s website as the valve business of the Schneider brand or its authorized or affiliated website.
At the same time, the determination of domain name infringement cannot be separated from the actual content of the website. The defendant not only used a domain name containing “Schneider”, but also repeatedly used marks such as “施耐德” and “Schneider” on its official website homepage, company profile, news headlines, and product promotion, and advertised that its product technology came from France. The court’s evaluation of the domain name in combination with the overall business content of the website conforms to the realistic characteristics of commercial mark infringement in the internet environment.
(5) Unfair Competition Regulation of Parasitic Conduct regarding Corporate Trade Names In addition to trademark infringement, this case also involved whether the use of the word “施耐德” in the corporate name constituted unfair competition. The defendant argued that its corporate name was registered and approved by the administrative department for industry and commerce, and thus it had the right to use the trade name “施耐德阀业” in business activities. This defense concerns the relationship between the legality of corporate name registration and the legitimacy of market use.
The Court stated in its judgment: “In the present case, Schneider company was established in 1995, and its affiliate, Schneider Electric, has been ranked among the Fortune Global 500 companies. Prior to the establishment of Schneider Valve (Tianjin) Co., Ltd., Schneider company and its affiliates had invested in and established several electrical production enterprises across various regions in China using ‘施耐德’ (Schneider) as their corporate trade name. Following years of business activities and sustained publicity and promotion, the trade name ‘施耐德’ (Schneider) has attained a high degree of market reputation. In conjunction with the facts pertaining to the reputation of the trademarks involved, this Court holds that the ‘施耐德’ (Schneider) trade name of Schneider company constitutes a ‘corporate name with certain influence’ as stipulated in Article 7 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China. The registration by Schneider Valve (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. of a corporate name containing the characters ‘施耐德’ (Schneider), coupled with its long-term use of marks comprising ‘施耐德’ (Schneider) and ‘Schneider’ as its corporate name in its business operations, is likely to mislead the relevant public and cause confusion therein, thereby constituting acts of unfair competition.”
The court found that Schneider company was established relatively early, and its affiliates had established multiple electrical production enterprises with “施耐德” as their trade name in many places in China before the defendant was established. After years of operation and continuous promotion, the “施耐德” trade name has acquired high market reputation and constitutes a corporate name with “certain influence” protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The defendant’s registration and use of a corporate name containing the word “施耐德”, and its long-term use of marks containing “施耐德” and “Schneider” in its operations, was likely to mislead the relevant public and cause confusion, constituting unfair competition.
This determination is of significant value for the governance of “brand-imitation” corporate names. In practice, some operators register corporate names by adding industry terms, regional terms, or organizational form terms after another’s well-known trademark or trade name and prominently use the core trade name in promotion to parasite upon another’s goodwill. This case shows that judicial authorities will not recognize the legitimacy of use merely because a name has been registered, but will further investigate whether the name exploits the influence of another’s prior commercial mark, whether it possesses the possibility of causing confusion, and whether it undermines the order of fair competition.
(6) Determination of Civil Liability: Injunctive Relief, Statutory Compensation, and the Boundary of Shareholder Liability Regarding the assumption of liability, the court ordered Schneider Valve Tianjin company to immediately cease acts infringing upon the exclusive rights to Registered Trademarks No. G715396 and No. 1493717, immediately cease acts of unfair competition against Schneider company, and pay a total of 550,000 RMB for economic losses and reasonable expenses for rights protection; meanwhile, other litigation requests of the plaintiff were dismissed.
Regarding the cessation of infringement, the court supported the plaintiff’s request for the defendant to cease using “Schneider” and “施耐德阀业” marks in valve products and business activities, cease using the “schneidervalves.com” domain name, and change its corporate name. Infringement of commercial marks is often persistent and dispersive, especially in the long-term existence of online platforms, official websites, and corporate names. If only compensation is ordered without stopping the use of the relevant marks, the state of confusion will persist. Therefore, the conduct injunction in this case was not only to stop existing infringement but also to prevent future confusion risks.
Regarding shareholder liability, the court did not support the plaintiff’s request for Shi Liting and Hong Qingyang to bear joint and several liability. Schneider Valve Tianjin company is a limited liability company, and although Shi Liting and Hong Qingyang are shareholders, the plaintiff failed to prove that the two individuals had abused the independent legal personality of the company and the limited liability of shareholders, or that there was commingling of property, excessive control, evasion of debts, or joint implementation of the infringement by the individuals. Accordingly, the court adhered to the principle of independent corporate personality and the limited liability of shareholders, avoiding the natural extension of corporate infringement liability to individual shareholders. This part of the judgment shows that shareholders in intellectual property infringement cases are not absolutely exempt from liability, but the extension of liability must have specific factual and legal basis and cannot be presumed solely on the basis of shareholder status.
Conclusion The practical value of this case lies first in clarifying the application logic of cross-class protection for well-known trademarks. For trademarks that already have high reputation, if others reproduce, imitate, or use their main identifying parts on non-similar goods, and it is sufficient to cause the relevant public to mistakenly believe that there exists authorization, cooperation, investment, brand extension, or other specific connections, the people’s court may grant cross-class protection in an individual case. However, such protection is not an expansion without boundaries; it is predicated upon the well-known status of the trademark, the trademark use of the accused mark, product or market relevance, the possibility of public confusion, and the possibility of damage to the right holder’s interests.
Secondly, this case clarified the judicial evaluation method for the stable corresponding relationship between foreign trademarks and Chinese translations. After a multinational brand has operated in the Chinese market for a long time, its foreign trademark, Chinese translation, and corporate trade name may together form a commercial source identification system. Infringement determination should not mechanically separate Chinese and English marks but should be based on the actual perception of the relevant public to investigate whether the accused mark parasitizes the right holder’s goodwill by means of that corresponding relationship.
Thirdly, this case serves as a model for the governance of corporate name infringement and unfair competition. Corporate name registration is not a justification for the use of commercial marks. Operators should proactively avoid others’ prior trademarks and trade names with high reputation when selecting trade names, registering domain names, and setting website names and social media accounts. Particularly in fields with certain industrial relevance or overlapping target customers with the right holder, unauthorized use of others’ well-known commercial marks is more likely to cause source confusion and may simultaneously trigger trademark infringement and unfair competition liability.
In summary, through the systematic processing of cross-class protection of well-known trademarks, regulation of trade name confusion, evaluation of domain name infringement, discretion of statutory compensation, and boundaries of shareholder liability, this case formed a relatively complete judicial logic. The judgment provides a valuable judicial sample for identifying commercial mark parasitic behavior, coordinating the application of Trademark Law and Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and determining infringement liability in the network environment in similar cases.
The court ultimately found that the involved Trademark No. G715396 “Schneider Electric & Device” and Trademark No. 1493717 “施耐德电气” had reached well-known status for goods such as circuit breakers and switches. The defendant, Schneider Valve (Tianjin) Co., Ltd., used marks such as “Schneider” and “施耐德阀业” in valve product promotion, its official website, social media accounts, and domain names, which was sufficient to cause the relevant public to mistakenly believe that a specific connection existed with the Schneider company, thereby constituting trademark infringement and unfair competition. The court ordered the defendant to cease the infringement and unfair competition, and to pay compensation for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 550,000 RMB; however, because the plaintiff failed to prove that the company’s shareholders had abused the independent legal personality of the corporation and the limited liability of shareholders, the court did not support the request for Shi Liting and Hong Qingyang to bear joint and several liability.
Against the background where the accused goods were neither identical nor similar to the goods for which the registered trademarks were approved for use, this case provided a relatively comprehensive judicial determination regarding cross-class protection of well-known trademarks, infringing use of corporate names, confusing use of domain names, and the boundaries of shareholder liability. This reflects the comprehensive grasp of the relationship between trademark protection and the maintenance of market competition order by the people’s courts in intellectual property trials, and also reflects current judicial practice’s approach to regulating “free-riding” and “brand-imitation” behaviors through the dual paths of trademark law and unfair competition law. The following is a specific analysis of this case.
I. Case Background The plaintiff in this case, Schneider Electric (China) Co., Ltd., was established in 1995 and is a major operating entity for Schneider Electric brands in the Chinese market. Schneider company and its affiliates have long operated in China’s electrical equipment field and hold registered trademarks including Trademark No. G715396 “Schneider Electric & Device” and Trademark No. 1493717 “施耐德电气”. Among them, Trademark No. G715396 is approved for use on goods in Class 9, including electrical and electronic apparatus and instruments; Trademark No. 1493717 is approved for use on Class 9 goods such as high and low voltage switchboards, electric switches, distribution boxes, circuit breakers, and transformers. The court found that before the defendant was established, Schneider company and its affiliates had established enterprises with “Schneider” as their trade name in many places in China, and relevant products possessed high reputation in the electrical field; Trademark No. G715396 “Schneider Electric & Device” had also previously been recognized by the national trademark authority as a well-known trademark used on circuit breakers, switches, and contactors.
The defendant, Schneider Valve (Tianjin) Co., Ltd., was established in 2020, with a business scope including the sale of valves and cocks, manufacture of ordinary valves and cocks, technology import and export, cargo import and export, and the sale of pumps and vacuum equipment. Evidence collected by the plaintiff showed that the defendant used the text “Official Website of Schneider Valve (China) Co., Ltd”. on its official website and displayed commercial marks through the vertical combination of the English “Schneider” and the Chinese “施耐德阀业”, while also advertising “products and technology from France”. The defendant also used marks such as “SCHNEIDERVALVE”, “Schneider”, “施耐德阀业”, and “Schneidervalves” in website news headlines, product introductions, Douyin accounts, WeChat video accounts, and on some product packaging displays. During the trial, the defendant admitted that the involved website, Douyin account, and WeChat video account were all owned by it.
Consequently, this case presented typical characteristics of a composite commercial mark dispute: the accused acts did not occur solely on product packaging or during the corporate name registration phase, but simultaneously covered corporate names, website domain names, official website pages, social media accounts, short video content, and product promotion across multiple commercial scenarios. Based on this, the plaintiff requested the court to order the defendant to cease using the relevant marks, cease using the relevant domain names, change the corporate name containing the word “施耐德”, and compensate for losses; the defendant primarily argued that its corporate name was registered and approved, the product categories of the two parties were different, the plaintiff failed to prove malice or loss, and the shareholders should not bear joint and several liability.
II. Disputed Issues and Trial The court summarized the disputed issues of this case into three aspects: first, whether the defendant implemented acts that infringed upon the exclusive rights to the registered trademarks involved; second, whether the defendant implemented acts of unfair competition; third, if trademark infringement or unfair competition is established, how the liable subjects and civil liabilities should be determined. The court deliberated on these issues as follows:
(1) Application of Cross-Class Protection for Well-Known Trademarks The court first confirmed that the goods for which the involved registered trademarks were approved for use were neither identical nor similar to the goods on which the accused marks were used. Therefore, if the plaintiff requested cross-class protection, it was necessary for the people’s court to examine whether the involved trademarks constituted well-known trademarks. This treatment conforms to the basic principle of “determination upon necessity” in the judicial protection of well-known trademarks—that is, an individual examination of a trademark’s well-known status is conducted only when absolutely necessary for the handling of the case.
In the specific determination, the court comprehensively considered the registration time of the involved trademarks, continuous usage, scope of publicity, market reputation, previous records of well-known protection, and the business accumulation of the right holder’s relevant enterprises in the Chinese market. Trademark No. G715396 was approved for registration in China as early as 1999; Schneider company and its affiliates have long operated in the electrical field, and the relevant brands have formed high reputation for goods such as circuit breakers and switches through continuous promotion and market use. The court ultimately determined that before the defendant was established, the involved registered trademarks already possessed high market reputation and widespread influence for circuit breakers and switches, becoming well-known trademarks familiar to the relevant public. This determination laid the foundation for subsequent cross-class protection and reflected the normative boundaries of well-known trademark protection. The court did not naturally expand the scope of protection simply because the Schneider brand had high reputation; rather, based on the differences in product categories, the manner in which the accused marks were used, and the possibility of confusion, it examined the well-known status as needed to determine whether cross-class protection should be granted.
(2) Judicial Confirmation of the Correspondence between Chinese and English Commercial Marks In this case, the court’s confirmation of the corresponding relationship between “Schneider” and “施耐德” was a crucial link in the judicial logic.
The Court stated in its judgment: “In the course of Schneider company’s long-term use and extensive promotion of its brands and goods, the distinctive part ‘Schneider’ of the ‘SchneiderElectric & Device’ trademark has established a fixed translation and a one-to-one correspondence with the Chinese characters ‘施耐德’ among relevant consumers in China. A stable connection has been established between its products and trademarks. This series of trademarks possesses a high degree of reputation and influence within the industry and on the relevant goods. Furthermore, the identity between its registered trademarks and its corporate trade name has further enhanced the distinctiveness of the trademarks.”
The court held that during the long-term use and extensive promotion of the brand and products by Schneider company, the distinctive part of the “Schneider Electric & Device” trademark, “Schneider”, had formed a fixed translation and a one-to-one correspondence with the Chinese characters “施耐德” among relevant consumers in China, and its products and trademarks had established a stable connection. This judgment indicates that in determining trademark similarity, the likelihood of confusion, and the scope of protection for well-known trademarks, the people’s court may proceed from the actual perception of the relevant public and incorporate the stable corresponding relationship formed between foreign language marks and Chinese translations into its consideration.
(3) Determination of Trademark Use on Non-Similar Goods Trademark law does not regulate all uses of words or symbols, but rather the use of marks to identify the source of goods or services. In this case, the marks used by the defendant often appeared in combination with industry-descriptive words such as “valve industry” (阀业) or “valves”. The question was whether such combinations still constituted trademark use and whether they might infringe upon the interests of the involved well-known trademarks.
The Court stated in its judgment: “Pursuant to Article 1 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes Involving Trademarks, the act of reproducing, imitating, or translating another person’s registered well-known trademark or its principal part for use as a trademark on non-identical or non-similar goods, which misleads the public and results in potential damage to the interests of the registrant of such well-known trademark, shall constitute an act that ‘causes other damages to another person’s exclusive right to a registered trademark’ as prescribed in Item (7) of Article 57 of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China. This Court holds that the use of marks containing the words ‘Schneider’ and ‘施耐德’ by Schneider Valve (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. in the introduction and promotion of its valve products has objectively functioned to identify the source of goods. Such conduct constitutes the use of the principal part of another person’s registered well-known trademark as a trademark on non-identical or non-similar goods as provided under the aforementioned laws. In view of the reputation of the involved trademarks and the Schneider company, as well as the relevance between the accused infringing products and the goods (such as circuit breakers and switches) for which the involved registered trademarks have become well-known—specifically in terms of product functions, application scenarios, consumer targets, and market environments—the accused trademark use is likely to cause the relevant public to mistakenly believe that a special connection exists between Schneider Valve (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. and its products and the Schneider company, thereby constituting an infringement of the exclusive rights to the registered trademarks held by the Schneider company.”
The court held that when Schneider Valve Tianjin company used words such as “Schneider” and “施耐德” in the introduction and promotion of valve products, it objectively functioned to identify the source of the goods, constituting an act of reproducing the main part of another’s registered well-known trademark and using it as a trademark on non-identical or non-similar goods. An operator cannot claim that its use constitutes legitimate descriptive use merely because it appends a general industry term, a product name, or a description of a business field after another’s well-known trademark. As long as the combined mark is used prominently in a commercial scenario and is sufficient for consumers to identify it as the source of goods or the source of a business entity, it may constitute use in the trademark sense.
Furthermore, the addition of industry-descriptive words sometimes does not reduce the likelihood of confusion but may instead strengthen the relevant public’s misperception of brand extension or authorized cooperation. For example, the combination of “Schneider” and “valves” to form “schneidervalves” easily leads the public to understand it as “Schneider Valves” or “Schneider brand valves”; the combination of “施耐德” and “阀业” to form “施耐德阀业” may also cause the relevant public to mistakenly believe that the enterprise is an affiliate or an authorized entity of Schneider company in the valve field.
The court also considered the relevance between valve products and the circuit breakers and switches on which the involved trademarks are well-known, in terms of product functions, application scenarios, consumer targets, and market environment. Although the two are not similar goods under trademark classification, they may face similar professional consumer groups in scenarios such as industrial control, energy management, infrastructure construction, and engineering procurement, and may appear together in industrial system solutions. It is precisely this commercial relevance that makes it easier for the relevant public to mistakenly perceive a specific connection. Accordingly, the court determined that the accused trademark use constituted an infringement of the exclusive rights to the registered trademarks involved.
(4) Trademark Infringement Constituted by Domain Name Use The defendant used “schneidervalves.com” as its official website domain name and displayed company introductions, product centers, news information, and major achievements through this website. On the surface, a domain name is an internet access address, but in commercial activities, it often functions to identify a business entity, point to the source of goods, and carry a brand image. Especially when a domain name contains the main identifying part of another’s trademark with high reputation, the risk of confusion should not be underestimated.
Based on the provisions concerning domain name infringement in the judicial interpretations of trademark civil disputes, the court held that registering a word identical or similar to another’s registered trademark as a domain name and conducting relevant commodity transactions or commercial promotion through that domain name, in a manner that easily causes confusion among the relevant public, constitutes an act of causing other damages to another’s exclusive rights to a registered trademark. In this case, “schneidervalves.com” is composed of “schneider” and “valves”, where “Schneider” is an important identifying part of the involved well-known trademark and “valves” points directly to the valve products operated by the defendant. This combination not only fails to effectively distinguish the commercial source but may instead cause the relevant public to understand the defendant’s website as the valve business of the Schneider brand or its authorized or affiliated website.
At the same time, the determination of domain name infringement cannot be separated from the actual content of the website. The defendant not only used a domain name containing “Schneider”, but also repeatedly used marks such as “施耐德” and “Schneider” on its official website homepage, company profile, news headlines, and product promotion, and advertised that its product technology came from France. The court’s evaluation of the domain name in combination with the overall business content of the website conforms to the realistic characteristics of commercial mark infringement in the internet environment.
(5) Unfair Competition Regulation of Parasitic Conduct regarding Corporate Trade Names In addition to trademark infringement, this case also involved whether the use of the word “施耐德” in the corporate name constituted unfair competition. The defendant argued that its corporate name was registered and approved by the administrative department for industry and commerce, and thus it had the right to use the trade name “施耐德阀业” in business activities. This defense concerns the relationship between the legality of corporate name registration and the legitimacy of market use.
The Court stated in its judgment: “In the present case, Schneider company was established in 1995, and its affiliate, Schneider Electric, has been ranked among the Fortune Global 500 companies. Prior to the establishment of Schneider Valve (Tianjin) Co., Ltd., Schneider company and its affiliates had invested in and established several electrical production enterprises across various regions in China using ‘施耐德’ (Schneider) as their corporate trade name. Following years of business activities and sustained publicity and promotion, the trade name ‘施耐德’ (Schneider) has attained a high degree of market reputation. In conjunction with the facts pertaining to the reputation of the trademarks involved, this Court holds that the ‘施耐德’ (Schneider) trade name of Schneider company constitutes a ‘corporate name with certain influence’ as stipulated in Article 7 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China. The registration by Schneider Valve (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. of a corporate name containing the characters ‘施耐德’ (Schneider), coupled with its long-term use of marks comprising ‘施耐德’ (Schneider) and ‘Schneider’ as its corporate name in its business operations, is likely to mislead the relevant public and cause confusion therein, thereby constituting acts of unfair competition.”
The court found that Schneider company was established relatively early, and its affiliates had established multiple electrical production enterprises with “施耐德” as their trade name in many places in China before the defendant was established. After years of operation and continuous promotion, the “施耐德” trade name has acquired high market reputation and constitutes a corporate name with “certain influence” protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The defendant’s registration and use of a corporate name containing the word “施耐德”, and its long-term use of marks containing “施耐德” and “Schneider” in its operations, was likely to mislead the relevant public and cause confusion, constituting unfair competition.
This determination is of significant value for the governance of “brand-imitation” corporate names. In practice, some operators register corporate names by adding industry terms, regional terms, or organizational form terms after another’s well-known trademark or trade name and prominently use the core trade name in promotion to parasite upon another’s goodwill. This case shows that judicial authorities will not recognize the legitimacy of use merely because a name has been registered, but will further investigate whether the name exploits the influence of another’s prior commercial mark, whether it possesses the possibility of causing confusion, and whether it undermines the order of fair competition.
(6) Determination of Civil Liability: Injunctive Relief, Statutory Compensation, and the Boundary of Shareholder Liability Regarding the assumption of liability, the court ordered Schneider Valve Tianjin company to immediately cease acts infringing upon the exclusive rights to Registered Trademarks No. G715396 and No. 1493717, immediately cease acts of unfair competition against Schneider company, and pay a total of 550,000 RMB for economic losses and reasonable expenses for rights protection; meanwhile, other litigation requests of the plaintiff were dismissed.
Regarding the cessation of infringement, the court supported the plaintiff’s request for the defendant to cease using “Schneider” and “施耐德阀业” marks in valve products and business activities, cease using the “schneidervalves.com” domain name, and change its corporate name. Infringement of commercial marks is often persistent and dispersive, especially in the long-term existence of online platforms, official websites, and corporate names. If only compensation is ordered without stopping the use of the relevant marks, the state of confusion will persist. Therefore, the conduct injunction in this case was not only to stop existing infringement but also to prevent future confusion risks.
Regarding shareholder liability, the court did not support the plaintiff’s request for Shi Liting and Hong Qingyang to bear joint and several liability. Schneider Valve Tianjin company is a limited liability company, and although Shi Liting and Hong Qingyang are shareholders, the plaintiff failed to prove that the two individuals had abused the independent legal personality of the company and the limited liability of shareholders, or that there was commingling of property, excessive control, evasion of debts, or joint implementation of the infringement by the individuals. Accordingly, the court adhered to the principle of independent corporate personality and the limited liability of shareholders, avoiding the natural extension of corporate infringement liability to individual shareholders. This part of the judgment shows that shareholders in intellectual property infringement cases are not absolutely exempt from liability, but the extension of liability must have specific factual and legal basis and cannot be presumed solely on the basis of shareholder status.
Conclusion The practical value of this case lies first in clarifying the application logic of cross-class protection for well-known trademarks. For trademarks that already have high reputation, if others reproduce, imitate, or use their main identifying parts on non-similar goods, and it is sufficient to cause the relevant public to mistakenly believe that there exists authorization, cooperation, investment, brand extension, or other specific connections, the people’s court may grant cross-class protection in an individual case. However, such protection is not an expansion without boundaries; it is predicated upon the well-known status of the trademark, the trademark use of the accused mark, product or market relevance, the possibility of public confusion, and the possibility of damage to the right holder’s interests.
Secondly, this case clarified the judicial evaluation method for the stable corresponding relationship between foreign trademarks and Chinese translations. After a multinational brand has operated in the Chinese market for a long time, its foreign trademark, Chinese translation, and corporate trade name may together form a commercial source identification system. Infringement determination should not mechanically separate Chinese and English marks but should be based on the actual perception of the relevant public to investigate whether the accused mark parasitizes the right holder’s goodwill by means of that corresponding relationship.
Thirdly, this case serves as a model for the governance of corporate name infringement and unfair competition. Corporate name registration is not a justification for the use of commercial marks. Operators should proactively avoid others’ prior trademarks and trade names with high reputation when selecting trade names, registering domain names, and setting website names and social media accounts. Particularly in fields with certain industrial relevance or overlapping target customers with the right holder, unauthorized use of others’ well-known commercial marks is more likely to cause source confusion and may simultaneously trigger trademark infringement and unfair competition liability.
In summary, through the systematic processing of cross-class protection of well-known trademarks, regulation of trade name confusion, evaluation of domain name infringement, discretion of statutory compensation, and boundaries of shareholder liability, this case formed a relatively complete judicial logic. The judgment provides a valuable judicial sample for identifying commercial mark parasitic behavior, coordinating the application of Trademark Law and Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and determining infringement liability in the network environment in similar cases.