{"id":1105,"date":"2021-02-21T18:53:03","date_gmt":"2021-02-21T18:53:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/?p=1105"},"modified":"2021-05-05T00:08:54","modified_gmt":"2021-05-05T00:08:54","slug":"burberry-wins-preliminary-injunction-against-baneberry-at-suzhou-chinas-intermediate-peoples-court-for-trademark-infringement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/02\/burberry-wins-preliminary-injunction-against-baneberry-at-suzhou-chinas-intermediate-peoples-court-for-trademark-infringement\/","title":{"rendered":"Burberry Wins Preliminary Injunction Against Baneberry at Suzhou, China’s Intermediate People’s Court for Trademark Infringement"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>On February 19, 2021, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court <a href=\"https:\/\/mp.weixin.qq.com\/s?__biz=MzIyMTQwMTU4Ng==&mid=2247509560&idx=1&sn=acdbe4c4581bade5ad3c179f35cc3879&chksm=e83fbea5df4837b3cb7c57252d1f74ffe55d57b88f9b552cdfb7695777a17d8255fda73f0ca0&sessionid=0&scene=126&clicktime=1613848485&enterid=1613848485&ascene=3&devicetype=android-30&version=27001543&nettype=WIFI&abtest_cookie=AAACAA%3D%3D&lang=en&exportkey=AQ40tSoAKnIViZu7KiZwTKY%3D&pass_ticket=j41gTBjML69uKR7jmMPm6uUS9Jir3A22V8pxDdpNy%2Bv%2BozUnJU0upBsTM5HH5cHs&wx_header=1\">announced\u00a0<\/a>it had awarded a preliminary injunction to <a href=\"https:\/\/cn.burberry.com\/\">Burberry<\/a> against Xinboli Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (\u65b0\u5e1b\u5229\u5546\u8d38\uff08\u4e0a\u6d77\uff09\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8), owner of Chinese brand <a href=\"https:\/\/www.baneberry.net\/\">Baneberry<\/a>, for trademark infringement. Burberry is an iconic British fashion brand founded in 1856 while Baneberry is a fast-growing Chinese brand with 40 physical stores opened in China in the last year and a half. <!--more--><\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_1118\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-1118\" style=\"width: 911px\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-1118\" src=\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/BBTM.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"911\" height=\"795\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/BBTM.jpg 911w, https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/BBTM-300x262.jpg 300w, https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/BBTM-768x670.jpg 768w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 709px) 85vw, (max-width: 909px) 67vw, (max-width: 1362px) 62vw, 840px\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-1118\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Burberry’s Chinese Trademark for a Pattern in Class 25 (clothing).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>The Court explained:<\/p>\n<p>The plaintiff’s trademark “BURBERRY” and logo <img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-1107\" src=\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/BBLogo-1.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"39\" height=\"37\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/BBLogo-1.jpg 39w, https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/BBLogo-1-24x24.jpg 24w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 39px) 85vw, 39px\" \/> are well-known to consumers in the Chinese market, and it is objectively possible to be recognized as a well-known trademark.\u00a0 Although the alleged infringing marks \u201cBANEBERRY\u201d and logo <img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-1108\" src=\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/BaneLogo.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"42\" height=\"36\" \/> are also registered trademarks, the alleged infringement in this case may be identified as malicious duplication and imitation of the well-known trademarks involved, and may constitute trademark infringement.<\/p>\n<p>Meanwhile, the allegedly infringing products widely used <img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-1109\" src=\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/BanePatterns.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"89\" height=\"40\" \/>patterns are also suspected to constitute infringement of the the plaintiff’s patterns <img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-1110\" src=\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/BbPatterns.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"87\" height=\"38\" \/> which are trademarks. In addition, Baneberry declared that the brand “originated in Jermyn Street, England, and its most symbolic ‘British lattice’ is a classic element in the fashion industry ” and other marketing pronouncements.\u00a0 The above behaviors are also likely to be deemed to constitute unfair competition.<\/p>\n<p>It should be pointed out that the infringing trademarks “BANEBERRY” and <img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-1108\" src=\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/BaneLogo.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"42\" height=\"36\" \/> are both registered trademarks, but the two trademarks were approved for registration in December 2009 and August 2011 respectively. Before the registration date of the two trademarks, Burberry’s “BURBERRY” and <img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-1107\" src=\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/BBLogo-1.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"39\" height=\"37\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/BBLogo-1.jpg 39w, https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/BBLogo-1-24x24.jpg 24w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 39px) 85vw, 39px\" \/> were already well-known. Existing evidence from this case shows that the alleged infringing trademark holders used the same special font as the BURBERRY brand to mark their “BANEBERRY” trademark, and used it in parallel with the <img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-1108\" src=\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/BaneLogo.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"42\" height=\"36\" \/> or the same or similar patterns, resulting in actual confusion.<\/p>\n<p>The Court further stated the injunction was urgent because Baneberry and Burberry sell in similar sales channels (mall, outlets in first and second tier cities such Shanghai, Nanjing, Hangzhou, etc.) that overlap to lead to confusion.\u00a0 Further, Baneberry is increasing selling via online channels. This has lowered Burberry’s market share, “weakening the distinctiveness and recognizability of its well-known trademarks. Based on the possibility of infringement of the accused act and the above-mentioned situation, the injunction is of real urgency.”<\/p>\n<p>The Court states the necessity of the injunction outweighs the disadvantages.\u00a0 From the perspective of the balance of interests, the plaintiff Burberry is the right holder of the internationally renowned brand “BURBERRY”. After a century of intensive cultivation, the brand has gained a high reputation, its rights status is stable, and some trademarks have long been recognized. Based on the facts, there is likely to be a finding of infringement. The possible damage to the defendant caused by the injunction is controllable. Failure to issue an injunction may cause irreparable damage to the plaintiff and cause a lot of confusion and misunderstanding among consumers.<\/p>\n<p>This the injunction will safeguard the public interest.\u00a0 From the perspective of social public interest, the alleged infringing product is clothing. As a general consumer product, consumers will only pay general attention when purchasing. IF the alleged infringement is allowed to continue, it will not only easily cause consumers to misidentify and wrongly purchase products, it will also involve a large number of third-party shopping malls, e-commerce platforms, etc., consuming unnecessary public resources. Evidence from this case shows that the alleged infringement has actually triggered a large number of consumer complaints.\u00a0Therefore, ordering the defendant to stop the relevant actions is conducive to maintaining the normal market transaction order and the rights and interests of consumers.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the Court stated that the plaintiff provided a guarantee, the amount of which was not disclosed. Accordingly, the Court issued an injunction to stop using the infringing trademarks and related marketing.\u00a0 The trial is still underway and no final ruling has been made. While permanent injunctions are common in China in intellectual property infringement cases, preliminary injunctions are much rarer although increasing.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p class=\"excerpt\">On February 19, 2021, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court announced\u00a0it had awarded a preliminary injunction to Burberry against Xinboli Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (\u65b0\u5e1b\u5229\u5546\u8d38\uff08\u4e0a\u6d77\uff09\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8), owner of Chinese brand Baneberry, for trademark infringement. Burberry is an iconic British fashion brand founded in 1856 while Baneberry is a fast-growing Chinese brand with 40 physical stores opened in China in the last year and a half.<\/p>\n<p class=\"more-link\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/02\/burberry-wins-preliminary-injunction-against-baneberry-at-suzhou-chinas-intermediate-peoples-court-for-trademark-infringement\/\" class=\"button\">Continue Reading<\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[28,4],"tags":[],"coauthors":[22],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v22.5 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Burberry Wins Preliminary Injunction Against Baneberry at Suzhou, China's Intermediate People's Court for Trademark Infringement - China IP Law Update<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/02\/burberry-wins-preliminary-injunction-against-baneberry-at-suzhou-chinas-intermediate-peoples-court-for-trademark-infringement\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Burberry Wins Preliminary Injunction Against Baneberry at Suzhou, China's Intermediate People's Court for Trademark Infringement - China IP Law Update\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"On February 19, 2021, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court announced\u00a0it had awarded a preliminary injunction to Burberry against Xinboli Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (\u65b0\u5e1b\u5229\u5546\u8d38\uff08\u4e0a\u6d77\uff09\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8), owner of Chinese brand Baneberry, for trademark infringement. Burberry is an iconic British fashion brand founded in 1856 while Baneberry is a fast-growing Chinese brand with 40 physical stores opened in China in the last year and a half.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/02\/burberry-wins-preliminary-injunction-against-baneberry-at-suzhou-chinas-intermediate-peoples-court-for-trademark-infringement\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"China IP Law Update\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-02-21T18:53:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-05-05T00:08:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/BBTM.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Aaron Wininger\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Aaron Wininger\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/02\/burberry-wins-preliminary-injunction-against-baneberry-at-suzhou-chinas-intermediate-peoples-court-for-trademark-infringement\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/02\/burberry-wins-preliminary-injunction-against-baneberry-at-suzhou-chinas-intermediate-peoples-court-for-trademark-infringement\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Aaron Wininger\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/person\/cd3c63c8dfee9e4c102809b921868bc5\"},\"headline\":\"Burberry Wins Preliminary Injunction Against Baneberry at Suzhou, China’s Intermediate People’s Court for Trademark Infringement\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-02-21T18:53:03+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-05-05T00:08:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/02\/burberry-wins-preliminary-injunction-against-baneberry-at-suzhou-chinas-intermediate-peoples-court-for-trademark-infringement\/\"},\"wordCount\":667,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/02\/burberry-wins-preliminary-injunction-against-baneberry-at-suzhou-chinas-intermediate-peoples-court-for-trademark-infringement\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/BBTM.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Case\",\"Trademarks\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/02\/burberry-wins-preliminary-injunction-against-baneberry-at-suzhou-chinas-intermediate-peoples-court-for-trademark-infringement\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/02\/burberry-wins-preliminary-injunction-against-baneberry-at-suzhou-chinas-intermediate-peoples-court-for-trademark-infringement\/\",\"name\":\"Burberry Wins Preliminary Injunction Against Baneberry at Suzhou, China's Intermediate People's Court for Trademark Infringement - China IP Law Update\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/02\/burberry-wins-preliminary-injunction-against-baneberry-at-suzhou-chinas-intermediate-peoples-court-for-trademark-infringement\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/02\/burberry-wins-preliminary-injunction-against-baneberry-at-suzhou-chinas-intermediate-peoples-court-for-trademark-infringement\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/BBTM.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-02-21T18:53:03+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-05-05T00:08:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/02\/burberry-wins-preliminary-injunction-against-baneberry-at-suzhou-chinas-intermediate-peoples-court-for-trademark-infringement\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/02\/burberry-wins-preliminary-injunction-against-baneberry-at-suzhou-chinas-intermediate-peoples-court-for-trademark-infringement\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/02\/burberry-wins-preliminary-injunction-against-baneberry-at-suzhou-chinas-intermediate-peoples-court-for-trademark-infringement\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/BBTM.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/BBTM.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/02\/burberry-wins-preliminary-injunction-against-baneberry-at-suzhou-chinas-intermediate-peoples-court-for-trademark-infringement\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Burberry Wins Preliminary Injunction Against Baneberry at Suzhou, China’s Intermediate People’s Court for Trademark Infringement\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/\",\"name\":\"China IP Law Update\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#organization\",\"name\":\"China IP Law Update\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/cropped-China-IP-Law-Update-Logo-for-website-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/cropped-China-IP-Law-Update-Logo-for-website-1.png\",\"width\":240,\"height\":81,\"caption\":\"China IP Law Update\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/person\/cd3c63c8dfee9e4c102809b921868bc5\",\"name\":\"Aaron Wininger\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/2a4c57b1fc56e213ed27e140da54c8a1\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/China-IP-Law-Blog-Square-96x96.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/China-IP-Law-Blog-Square-96x96.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Aaron Wininger\"},\"description\":\"Aaron Wininger is a Principal and Director of the China Intellectual Property at Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner.\",\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/aaron-wininger\/\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/aaron-wininger-135113\/\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/author\/aaron-wininger\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Burberry Wins Preliminary Injunction Against Baneberry at Suzhou, China's Intermediate People's Court for Trademark Infringement - China IP Law Update","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/02\/burberry-wins-preliminary-injunction-against-baneberry-at-suzhou-chinas-intermediate-peoples-court-for-trademark-infringement\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Burberry Wins Preliminary Injunction Against Baneberry at Suzhou, China's Intermediate People's Court for Trademark Infringement - China IP Law Update","og_description":"On February 19, 2021, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court announced\u00a0it had awarded a preliminary injunction to Burberry against Xinboli Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (\u65b0\u5e1b\u5229\u5546\u8d38\uff08\u4e0a\u6d77\uff09\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8), owner of Chinese brand Baneberry, for trademark infringement. Burberry is an iconic British fashion brand founded in 1856 while Baneberry is a fast-growing Chinese brand with 40 physical stores opened in China in the last year and a half.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/02\/burberry-wins-preliminary-injunction-against-baneberry-at-suzhou-chinas-intermediate-peoples-court-for-trademark-infringement\/","og_site_name":"China IP Law Update","article_published_time":"2021-02-21T18:53:03+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-05-05T00:08:54+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/BBTM.jpg"}],"author":"Aaron Wininger","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Aaron Wininger","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/02\/burberry-wins-preliminary-injunction-against-baneberry-at-suzhou-chinas-intermediate-peoples-court-for-trademark-infringement\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/02\/burberry-wins-preliminary-injunction-against-baneberry-at-suzhou-chinas-intermediate-peoples-court-for-trademark-infringement\/"},"author":{"name":"Aaron Wininger","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/person\/cd3c63c8dfee9e4c102809b921868bc5"},"headline":"Burberry Wins Preliminary Injunction Against Baneberry at Suzhou, China’s Intermediate People’s Court for Trademark Infringement","datePublished":"2021-02-21T18:53:03+00:00","dateModified":"2021-05-05T00:08:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/02\/burberry-wins-preliminary-injunction-against-baneberry-at-suzhou-chinas-intermediate-peoples-court-for-trademark-infringement\/"},"wordCount":667,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/02\/burberry-wins-preliminary-injunction-against-baneberry-at-suzhou-chinas-intermediate-peoples-court-for-trademark-infringement\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/BBTM.jpg","articleSection":["Case","Trademarks"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/02\/burberry-wins-preliminary-injunction-against-baneberry-at-suzhou-chinas-intermediate-peoples-court-for-trademark-infringement\/","url":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/02\/burberry-wins-preliminary-injunction-against-baneberry-at-suzhou-chinas-intermediate-peoples-court-for-trademark-infringement\/","name":"Burberry Wins Preliminary Injunction Against Baneberry at Suzhou, China's Intermediate People's Court for Trademark Infringement - China IP Law Update","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/02\/burberry-wins-preliminary-injunction-against-baneberry-at-suzhou-chinas-intermediate-peoples-court-for-trademark-infringement\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/02\/burberry-wins-preliminary-injunction-against-baneberry-at-suzhou-chinas-intermediate-peoples-court-for-trademark-infringement\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/BBTM.jpg","datePublished":"2021-02-21T18:53:03+00:00","dateModified":"2021-05-05T00:08:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/02\/burberry-wins-preliminary-injunction-against-baneberry-at-suzhou-chinas-intermediate-peoples-court-for-trademark-infringement\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/02\/burberry-wins-preliminary-injunction-against-baneberry-at-suzhou-chinas-intermediate-peoples-court-for-trademark-infringement\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/02\/burberry-wins-preliminary-injunction-against-baneberry-at-suzhou-chinas-intermediate-peoples-court-for-trademark-infringement\/#primaryimage","url":"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/BBTM.jpg","contentUrl":"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/BBTM.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2021\/02\/burberry-wins-preliminary-injunction-against-baneberry-at-suzhou-chinas-intermediate-peoples-court-for-trademark-infringement\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Burberry Wins Preliminary Injunction Against Baneberry at Suzhou, China’s Intermediate People’s Court for Trademark Infringement"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/","name":"China IP Law Update","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#organization","name":"China IP Law Update","url":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/cropped-China-IP-Law-Update-Logo-for-website-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/cropped-China-IP-Law-Update-Logo-for-website-1.png","width":240,"height":81,"caption":"China IP Law Update"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/person\/cd3c63c8dfee9e4c102809b921868bc5","name":"Aaron Wininger","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/2a4c57b1fc56e213ed27e140da54c8a1","url":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/China-IP-Law-Blog-Square-96x96.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/China-IP-Law-Blog-Square-96x96.jpg","caption":"Aaron Wininger"},"description":"Aaron Wininger is a Principal and Director of the China Intellectual Property at Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner.","sameAs":["http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/aaron-wininger\/","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/aaron-wininger-135113\/"],"url":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/author\/aaron-wininger\/"}]}},"co_authors":[4],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1105"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1105"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1105\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1407,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1105\/revisions\/1407"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1105"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1105"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1105"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=1105"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}