The second instance of the trademark infringement dispute on "Lafei" and "Lafei Manor" trademarks was heard recently by the Supreme Court in public. In earlier hearing by Jiangsu Higher Court, Nanjing Lafei Manor Winery Co., Ltd. and Nanjing Huaxia Winery Co., Ltd. were ordered to compensate Lafite Rothschild Winery for losses totaling 79.17 million yuan, a record-breaking amount compared with similar cases of the last ten years. 

Lafite wine of Lafite Rothschild Winery officially entered the Chinese mainland market in 1990s. On October 28, 1997, the winery's two trademarks "LAFITE" and "CHATEAU LAFITE ROTHSCHILD" were approved for registration in mainland China. In 2005, Nanjing Golden Hope Winery Co., Ltd. also applied for registration of the trademark "Lafei Manor" on its wine product, which was approved in 2007. Nanjing Huaxia Winery Co., Ltd. was established in 2005, followed by establishment of Nanjing Lafei Manor Winery Co., Ltd. in 2006. 

In 2011, the "Lafei Manor" wine product was launched in market. The outer packaging of the product is marked with the words "LAFEI MANOR". "LAFEI" is the pinyin form of the Chinese mark "拉菲", which is similar to "LAFITE". The company also made TV advertisements for its product, in which the products with the labels "LAFEI MANOR" and "Lafei Manor" were clearly shown, accompanied by the slogan "Historical Precipitation of the Twelfth Century". 

Jiangsu High Court held in the first instance hearing that these advertisements may have misleading effect. Golden Hope Company and Lafei Manor Company use the logos "Lafei" and "Lafei Manor", thereby causing the consumers to confuse the wine products produced and sold by Golden Hope Company and Lafei Manor Company with the products of Lafite Rothschild Winery. 

A stable correspondence has been formed between "Lafite" and "LAFITE" trademarks, which can be protected as the Chinese translation of LAFITE trademarks. However, the "Manor" in the alleged infringement logo "Lafei Manor" is less significant in wine category, "Lafite" is the main part of the logo, It has the same font and pronunciation as the Chinese translation name "Lafite" of "LAFITE" in the trademark "LAFITE" and "CHATEAULAFITEROTHSCHILD" involved, There is a high degree of similarity in visual effects. For the Chinese public who do not use French as their mother tongue, it is easy to misunderstand the source of the two products or think that they have a specific connection with Lafite Rothschild Winery. Therefore, it is determined that the alleged infringing logo constitutes an approximation and infringes the exclusive right to use the above two trademarks. 

Subjectively, Lafei Manor Company has the malice of clinging to the trademark "LAFITE" and Lafite Rothschild Winery. As a competitor in the same industry, we should know the use of "LAFITE" trademark by Lafite Rothschild Winery and the objective fact that it has always used "LAFITE" and "Lafite" in wine products, but we still register "Lafei Manor" as an enterprise name and use it through official websites and other publicity channels. It is trademark infringement and unfair competition. 

On June 30, 2021, Jiangsu High Court ruled in the first instance that Lafite Rothschild Winery should get economic losses and reasonable expenses of 79.17 million yuan to stop infringement. At the same time, the court held that Lafei Manor Company's registration of "Lafei Manor" as an enterprise name infringed the exclusive right to use the trademark "LAFITE" involved in Lafite Rothschild Winery. Therefore, Nanjing Lafei Manor Wine Co., Ltd. was sentenced to go through the formalities of changing the enterprise name within 30 days from the effective date of this judgment, and the enterprise name of the changed household shall not contain the word "Lafite". On the same day, in the Supreme Court trial, Lafei Manor, Huaxia Company and Golden Hope Company all appealed that the amount of compensation awarded was too high, and requested to revoke the first-instance judgment and reject all Lafite's requests. 

The trial lasted until noon, and no verdict was pronounced in court.