The Shanghai court recently held a public hearing on the trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute between the plaintiff SlamBall (Shanghai) Sports Culture Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as SlamBall Company) and the defendant Shanghai Mona Sports Culture Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Mona Company). 

Slamball is a sport initiated by Mason Gordon by setting competitive norms and field techniques on the basis of trampoline basketball. Founded in 2012, SlamBall Company is the only legal and exclusive commercial entity of American SlamBall Extreme Basketball in mainland China and in Asia. In 2012 and 2014, Slamball Company applied for the trademarks No.10936841 and No.14085915, respectively, and obtained the exclusive right to use the trademarks after approval. 

In order to publicized the trampoline basketball operated in the "Dongba CHUA Trampoline Park" stadium  (hereinafter referred to as the venue involved), one of its main profit-making project, the defendant used extensively the propaganda terms such as "斯篮搏球场(SLAMBALL Stadium)”, “斯篮搏篮球比赛 (SLAMBALL Basketball Game)”, “可能是上海唯一一家专业的斯篮搏球场 (It may be the only professional SLAMBALL Stadium in Shanghai)" on various platforms, including Dianping.com, Ctrip.com, Parent State, Netease.com, WeChat platform with the name "Dongba CHUA Super Trampoline Park" (hereinafter referred to as WeChat platform involved). The text “斯篮搏” contained in the above contents has constituted the use of the same/similar logo as the trademark of the plaintiff under the same service class. 

However, the defendant Mona Company argued that: the original meaning of the word "斯篮搏 (Slamball)" refers to a specific sport. The Chinese word "斯篮搏" used by Mona Company in the involved venues is not a trademark usage, but only an introduction to the specific sports in the involved venues, which is a typical descriptive use. It specifically refers to trampoline basketball and does not constitute trademark infringement. 

After hearing of the case, the court ruled as follows: 

1. The defendant Shanghai Mona Sports Culture Development Co., Ltd. shall stop infringing the exclusive right to use registered trademarks No.14085915 and No.10936841 from the effective date of this judgment; 

2. The defendant Shanghai Mona Sports Culture Development Co., Ltd. shall publish a statement, on a prominent place of China Sports Daily, about its infringement of the exclusive right to use the registered trademark within ten days from the effective date of this judgment to eliminate the impact; 

3. The defendant Shanghai Mona Sports Culture Development Co., Ltd. shall compensate the plaintiff SlamBall (Shanghai) Sports Culture Development Co., Ltd. for economic losses of 180,000 yuan within ten days from the effective date of this judgment; 

4. The defendant Shanghai Mona Sports Culture Development Co., Ltd. shall compensate the plaintiff SlamBall (Shanghai) Sports Culture Development Co., Ltd. for the reasonable expenses of safeguarding rights within ten days from the effective date of this judgment; 

5. The court rejected the remaining claims of the plaintiff SlamBall (Shanghai) Sports Culture Development Co., Ltd.

When it comes to the protection of service trademarks for sports events, whether the word "斯篮搏(Slamball)" should have the "second meaning" of distinguishing service sources when it has actually become the name of a competitive sports event, the courts of first and second instance gave positive conclusions after focusing on the actual usage characteristics of trademarks. 

On the one hand, the court determined distinctiveness of plaintiff’s trademark and there is no degradation in actual use. The defendant’s use of 斯篮搏（Slamball）characters constitutes an infringement of the exclusive right to use the registered trademark No.10936841. 

On the other hand, it is also clear that the exclusive owner does not have the right to exclude others from using it properly as the name of sports events (but the goodwill accumulated on the right trademark by the company in a series of commercial operations belongs to its own, and does not belong to the content that can be freely used by the public). This case strictly follows the basic principles of Trademark Law, makes an appropriate value balance between the monopoly rights enjoyed by the exclusive right holder and the protection of the public's free use of social resources, draws a clear line between the exclusive right to use registered trademarks and public interests, and makes a useful exploration for the creation of new adjudication rules.