[Case Summary]This case is a commercial defamation dispute that lasted for three years. Our client, Company H, sent an infringement warning letter to the mall where Company A's clothing store is located, claiming that Company A's use of the trademark constitutes imitation of a prior well-known trademark and infringement. Company A sued in September 2020, alleging that the content of the warning letter was false and constituted commercial defamation, demanding compensation of 300,000 yuan; the first-instance court ordered us to eliminate the impact and compensate 80,000 yuan; the second-instance court revoked and dismissed the case; and the Beijing Higher People's Court ruled in the retrial that it did not constitute commercial defamation and dismissed Company A's retrial application. Beijing Hengluo Law FirmThe Party Education and Training Work DepartmentThe lawyer represents our client. The core dispute is whether the trademark owner's sending of an infringement warning letter constitutes commercial defamation. The applicable legal provision is Article 11 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The court clearly defines the boundaries of the legitimacy of using infringement warning letters to protect rights.

I. Review of the Case

The case originated from our client sending a warning letter to the mall where A Company's clothing store is located, informing them that the use of a certain trademark by A Company to operate the clothing store constitutes infringement of our client's prior well-known trademark and violates the exclusive right to use the registered trademark. In September 2020, A Company filed a lawsuit against us in the Dongcheng District Court of Beijing, alleging that the statements in our lawyer's letter were inconsistent with the facts and constituted commercial defamation by fabricating and disseminating false or misleading information. A Company requested that we withdraw the warning letter, refrain from issuing any further warnings, and compensate them 300,000 yuan. In the first-instance judgment, the court ordered us to issue a clarification statement to eliminate the impact and compensate them 80,000 yuan. We appealed the judgment and the case is currently being handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Party trainingThe lawyer acted on behalf of the client, supplemented new evidence such as the reply from the market to the letter, and the Beijing Intellectual Property Court reversed the first-instance judgment and dismissed all of A Company's claims in the second instance. A Company applied for a retrial, and the Beijing Municipal Higher People's Court issued a retrial ruling, determining that sending the warning letter did not constitute commercial defamation and dismissing the retrial application.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Whether the content of the warning letter is false or misleading.The right holder believes that the products are similar based on the decision of the China Intellectual Property Administration. The warning letter is based on reasonable logic and factual grounds, and does not constitute the fabrication and dissemination of false information.
  • Focus II: Whether the recipients of the letter and the method of sending it are appropriate.Sending a letter to a specific seller in advance to protect rights and disclose information accurately, without unduly expanding the scope of the target, does not constitute an abuse of rights.
  • Focus III: Whether there is intentional damage to business reputation subjectively, and whether there are objective consequences of such damage.The letter was sent to protect rights and not with the intention of gaining a competitive advantage. It did not cause any damage to the company's reputation.

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

Our client (Company H) alleges that:It is argued that sending an infringement warning letter is a legitimate act of defending trademark rights by the prior trademark owner and should not be strictly restricted. It is requested to revoke the first-instance judgment and reject A Company's litigation request.

The position of the other party (Company A):Company A claims that the content of the warning letter lacks any judicial verification, is clearly false, and is likely to mislead the market into believing that it has maliciously registered, constituting commercial defamation. It demands that the warning letter be withdrawn and compensation be provided.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:The Party Building Work ConferenceThe lawyer argued: Firstly, sending the warning letter was a legitimate act of protecting the trademark rights of the prior trademark owner. The first-instance court deemed it as false without judicial verification, and essentially required that the letter must go through judicial procedures before being sent, which was clearly inappropriate. Secondly, the China Intellectual Property Administration has already determined that A Company's trademark is similar to our trademark. The warning letter was based on factual and legal judgments, and the lawyer had fulfilled his obligation of exercising due diligence, so it did not constitute fabricating false information. Thirdly, sending the letter to specific sellers to protect our rights in advance and disclosing accurate information did not inappropriately expand the target audience or abuse rights. Fourthly, sending the letter was aimed at protecting our rights and did not intentionally damage our business reputation. Objectively, it did not cause any harm. Both the second-instance and the retrial courts adopted the lawyer's arguments.

IV. Outcome of the case

The Beijing Municipal Higher People's Court issued a retrial ruling, determining that our client's sending of an infringement warning letter to the mall did not constitute an act of commercial defamation as defined in Article 11 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and dismissed A Company's application for retrial. The second-instance judgment has revoked the first-instance judgment and dismissed all of A Company's claims. This case clarifies the boundaries of the legitimacy of rights holders protecting their rights through infringement warning letters, balancing the protection of rights holders' interests and preventing rights abuse. It has been reported by professional media such as Zhi Chanbao and China Intellectual Property News.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Party trainingThe attorney (practice license number: 11101201911130220, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent. It is legitimate for trademark owners to protect their rights through infringement warning letters, but they should pay attention to ensuring that the facts are fully substantiated, the recipients are appropriate, and the disclosures are accurate, in order to avoid abuse. When facing accusations of commercial defamation, professional lawyers can defend against the legitimacy of the warning letters and safeguard the legitimate space for protecting rights.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about Commercial Defamation Disputes

  1. Q: Does sending a copyright infringement warning letter constitute commercial defamation?
    A:Not necessarily. It is a legitimate act for a trademark owner to send a warning letter to a specific target based on sufficient factual evidence to protect their rights; however, if they fabricate false information or inappropriately expand the target to damage the business reputation of competitors, it may constitute commercial defamation.
  2. Q: Do warning letters need to be issued only after the court determines that there has been an infringement?
    A:No, it's not necessary. The infringement warning system does not require a judicial determination of infringement before sending a letter. The right holder can send a letter based on reasonable factual judgment and fulfill the obligation of due diligence. Otherwise, it will hinder the effectiveness of protecting rights.
  3. Q: How to determine commercial defamation?
    A:There are three essential elements that must be present: fabricating and disseminating false or misleading information, subjectively intending to damage business reputation, and objectively causing potential damage to business reputation. All three elements are indispensable.
  4. Q: What should I do if I'm sued for commercial defamation?
    A:The lawyer can be entrusted to provide evidence that the warning letter has a factual and legal basis, is directed at the appropriate target, and does not involve any intentional harm, asserting that it is a legitimate exercise of rights; in this case, both the second instance and the retrial have resulted in victories.
  5. Q: Can we send a warning letter in the event of a trademark similarity dispute?
    A:Yes. If the China Intellectual Property Administration or other authorities determine that the products are similar, it is within the boundaries of legitimate rights protection to send a letter to disclose the suspected infringement information based on reasonable logic.