The Hubei Provincial High People’s Court announced on November 20 that it had upheld the first-instance verdict in the case of trademark infringement and unfair competition brought by Michelin Group against Shanghai Michelin Catering Management Co., Ltd. The court rejected the appeal of Shanghai Michelin and ordered it to stop infringing Michelin’s trademark rights and pay 10 million yuan in compensation.

Michelin, a French company founded in 1863, is a world-renowned tire manufacturer and one of the Fortune 500 companies. Since the 1980s, Michelin has registered “MICHELIN” and “米其林” trademarks in China, covering goods and services such as wheels, tires, inner tubes, and providing hotel and restaurant information for travelers. The trademarks have been repeatedly recognized as well-known trademarks by China’s trademark examination authorities and judicial organs. Because “MICHELIN” corresponds to the Cantonese pronunciation of “米芝莲”, Michelin registered several “MICHELIN” and “米芝莲” trademarks in Hong Kong, China in 1990 and 2009.

Evidence showed that Shanghai Michelin had deliberately associated itself with Michelin in its copywriting on platforms such as WeChat public account.

Michelin argued that Shanghai Michelin had infringed its trademark rights and engaged in unfair competition by using “米芝莲” as its trade name, and filed a lawsuit with the Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court, demanding that it stop the infringement and compensate for the loss.

After hearing the case, the Wuhan Intellectual Property Tribunal ruled in the first instance: Shanghai Michelin must immediately stop using “米芝莲” and “米芝蓮” marks in its business activities, stop using “米芝莲” as its trade name, and change its company name to avoid containing words that are identical or similar to “米芝莲” “米其林” “MICHELIN”; compensate Michelin for economic losses of 10 million yuan; publish a statement in the China Intellectual Property News to eliminate the impact.

Shanghai Michelin appealed to the Hubei High Court. Shanghai Michelin claimed that “米芝莲”, as the Cantonese translation of “MICHELIN”, was not widely used and known by the public in mainland China, and was not likely to cause consumer confusion. This was one of the disputed points in the first and second instances.

After responding to Shanghai Michelin’s appeal arguments one by one, the Hubei High Court made a second-instance judgment: rejecting the appeal and upholding the original verdict.