{"id":2886,"date":"2024-01-30T01:39:25","date_gmt":"2024-01-30T01:39:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/?p=2886"},"modified":"2024-01-30T01:39:25","modified_gmt":"2024-01-30T01:39:25","slug":"chinas-supreme-peoples-court-upholds-79-million-rmb-win-for-chateau-lafite-rothschild-in-wine-trademark-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2024\/01\/chinas-supreme-peoples-court-upholds-79-million-rmb-win-for-chateau-lafite-rothschild-in-wine-trademark-case\/","title":{"rendered":"China&#8217;s Supreme People&#8217;s Court Upholds 79 Million RMB Win for Ch\u00e2teau Lafite Rothschild in Wine Trademark Case"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In a decision dated September 21, 2023 and only just released, China&#8217;s Supreme People&#8217;s Court (SPC) ruled for <a href=\"https:\/\/www.lafite.com\/domaines\/chateau-lafite-rothschild\/\">Ch\u00e2teau Lafite Rothschild<\/a> upholding a judgement of 79.17 million RMB. The plaintiff in the first instance, Ch\u00e2teau Lafite Rothschild, believed that Golden Hope Company (\u5357\u4eac\u91d1\u8272\u5e0c\u671b\u9152\u4e1a\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8), Chateau Lafite Company (\u5357\u4eac\u62c9\u83f2\u5e84\u56ed\u9152\u4e1a\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8), Huaxia Company (\u5357\u4eac\u534e\u590f\u8461\u8404\u917f\u9152\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8), Junteng Company (\u6df1\u5733\u5e02\u9a8f\u817e\u9152\u4e1a\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8), Perun Company (\u676d\u5dde\u4f69\u4f26\u8d38\u6613\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8), Zui Niu Company (\u5317\u4eac\u9189\u725b\u9152\u4e1a\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8), and Jiu Sheng Company (\u4e0a\u6d77\u4e45\u5723\u9152\u7c7b\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8) used &#8220;LAFEI MANOR&#8221; and &#8220;\u62c9\u83f2\u5e84\u56ed&#8221; to infringe on its trademark rights\u00a0 and damage the reputation of its well-known trademarks. The plaintiff also argued that the defendants forged their geographic origin, which is unfair competition.<!--more--><\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_2887\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-2887\" style=\"width: 868px\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-2887\" src=\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/G237725.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"868\" height=\"638\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/G237725.jpg 868w, https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/G237725-300x221.jpg 300w, https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/G237725-768x564.jpg 768w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 709px) 85vw, (max-width: 909px) 67vw, (max-width: 1362px) 62vw, 840px\" \/><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-2887\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Chinese Trademark G237725<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p><span>The SPC held that according to the evidence submitted by Golden Hope Company in related cases, there are a total of 757 dealers and agents of &#8220;Ch\u00e2teau Lafite&#8221; wine across the country, and &#8220;Ch\u00e2teau Lafite&#8221; wine has been sold in nearly 2,000 supermarkets. <\/span><span>The cost ranges from 4 to 5 RMB to more than 10 RMB , but the sales price ranges from more than 60 RMB to thousands of yuan, and therefore the illegal profits are as high as ten times or more. <\/span><span>This shows that the illegal profits obtained by the seven defendants including Golden Hope Company as a result of the infringement far exceeded 100 million RMB .<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The SPC calculated the profit margins as (single bottle sales price \u2013 single bottle cost price)\/single bottle sales price.\u00a0 According to the recalculated sales price and cost price data, the profit margin of Ch\u00e2teau Lafite Company is 67%, the profit margin of Huaxia Company is 68%, and the profit margin of Junteng Company and Perun Company is both 31%.<\/p>\n<p>The SPC ruled that Ch\u00e2teau Lafite Rothschild should receive damages and reasonable expenses paid to stop the infringement totaling 79.17 million RMB. Specifically, Chateau Lafite Company should compensate Ch\u00e2teau Lafite Rothschild for economic losses and reasonable expenses to stop the infringement of 51 million RMB, and Huaxia Company should compensate Ch\u00e2teau Lafite Rothschild\u00a0 for economic losses and reasonable expenses to stop the infringement of 25.2 million RMB. Junteng Company should compensate Ch\u00e2teau Lafite Rothschild 2.69 million RMB.<\/p>\n<p>The case number is (2022)\u6700\u9ad8\u6cd5\u6c11\u7ec8313\u53f7 and the full text of the decision is available courtesy of \u77e5\u4ea7\u8d22\u7ecf\u00a0 <a href=\"https:\/\/mp.weixin.qq.com\/s?__biz=MzUxMDAwNTI3OQ==&amp;mid=2247514566&amp;idx=1&amp;sn=8fe0aedc0594632ea3ab849d0c7efbab&amp;chksm=f8231e19e2df1f3c0e9aaf438db99549b82f5c41afb21596d353d701cb58d709e0bf402662fe&amp;xtrack=1&amp;scene=90&amp;subscene=93&amp;sessionid=1706231218&amp;flutter_pos=0&amp;clicktime=1706231221&amp;enterid=1706231221&amp;ascene=56&amp;fasttmpl_type=0&amp;fasttmpl_fullversion=7046512-en_US-zip&amp;fasttmpl_flag=0&amp;realreporttime=1706231221982&amp;devicetype=android-34&amp;version=28002a43&amp;nettype=WIFI&amp;abtest_cookie=AAACAA%3D%3D&amp;lang=en&amp;session_us=gh_8cdb7a181961&amp;countrycode=US&amp;exportkey=n_ChQIAhIQIeoWXbUCdLKRgM32KMMkWRLeAQIE97dBBAEAAAAAAKdRJjO2LicAAAAOpnltbLcz9gKNyK89dVj0fQl%2FqfwLTd6XP3Q5WdlFad2PKp3lKlx1aeoit%2F%2F5cxrGPS1z%2FkIhd4lo4Bt0aSHhySO1v3F7kjzslPAjxq8y%2B32QoIu1IoEbypfL%2Bd2YzgkjNacWeIeo0FTUmml3CPla434E0EkvJVIvn0hSrtAgrUyjvDI2vpA0iFL%2F%2FJlRhfzUBjSI3WmfPtw3uWRYG9riIDznjQsisiTEBTuRSL4aulkmG9R8rXSke%2F7%2BerKhY12h2BBytMQASA%3D%3D&amp;pass_ticket=ndYf4xYTLdoF3pPxtj03k%2F98M12B0iPVPJHg%2FqyvcP6IbfEDz4biYNRZdZr91SXmmS1pM1f6SuY%2FuzN9zS7FAg%3D%3D&amp;wx_header=3\">here<\/a> (Chinese only).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p class=\"excerpt\">In a decision dated September 21, 2023 and only just released, China&#8217;s Supreme People&#8217;s Court (SPC) ruled for Ch\u00e2teau Lafite Rothschild upholding a judgement of 79.17 million RMB. The plaintiff in the first instance, Ch\u00e2teau Lafite Rothschild, believed that Golden Hope Company (\u5357\u4eac\u91d1\u8272\u5e0c\u671b\u9152\u4e1a\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8), Chateau Lafite Company (\u5357\u4eac\u62c9\u83f2\u5e84\u56ed\u9152\u4e1a\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8), Huaxia Company (\u5357\u4eac\u534e\u590f\u8461\u8404\u917f\u9152\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8), Junteng Company (\u6df1\u5733\u5e02\u9a8f\u817e\u9152\u4e1a\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8), Perun Company (\u676d\u5dde\u4f69\u4f26\u8d38\u6613\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8), Zui Niu Company (\u5317\u4eac\u9189\u725b\u9152\u4e1a\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8), and Jiu Sheng Company (\u4e0a\u6d77\u4e45\u5723\u9152\u7c7b\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8) used &#8220;LAFEI MANOR&#8221; and &#8220;\u62c9\u83f2\u5e84\u56ed&#8221; to infringe on its trademark rights\u00a0 and damage the reputation &#8230;<\/p>\n<p class=\"more-link\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2024\/01\/chinas-supreme-peoples-court-upholds-79-million-rmb-win-for-chateau-lafite-rothschild-in-wine-trademark-case\/\" 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>China&#039;s Supreme People&#039;s Court Upholds 79 Million RMB Win for Ch\u00e2teau Lafite Rothschild in Wine Trademark Case - 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\/2024\/01\/chinas-supreme-peoples-court-upholds-79-million-rmb-win-for-chateau-lafite-rothschild-in-wine-trademark-case\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"China&#039;s Supreme People&#039;s Court Upholds 79 Million RMB Win for Ch\u00e2teau Lafite Rothschild in Wine Trademark Case - China IP Law Update\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In a decision dated September 21, 2023 and only just released, China&#8217;s Supreme People&#8217;s Court (SPC) ruled for Ch\u00e2teau Lafite Rothschild upholding a judgement of 79.17 million RMB. The plaintiff in the first instance, Ch\u00e2teau Lafite Rothschild, believed that Golden Hope Company (\u5357\u4eac\u91d1\u8272\u5e0c\u671b\u9152\u4e1a\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8), Chateau Lafite Company (\u5357\u4eac\u62c9\u83f2\u5e84\u56ed\u9152\u4e1a\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8), Huaxia Company (\u5357\u4eac\u534e\u590f\u8461\u8404\u917f\u9152\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8), Junteng Company (\u6df1\u5733\u5e02\u9a8f\u817e\u9152\u4e1a\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8), Perun Company (\u676d\u5dde\u4f69\u4f26\u8d38\u6613\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8), Zui Niu Company (\u5317\u4eac\u9189\u725b\u9152\u4e1a\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8), and Jiu Sheng Company (\u4e0a\u6d77\u4e45\u5723\u9152\u7c7b\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8) used &#8220;LAFEI MANOR&#8221; and &#8220;\u62c9\u83f2\u5e84\u56ed&#8221; to infringe on its trademark rights\u00a0 and damage the reputation ...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2024\/01\/chinas-supreme-peoples-court-upholds-79-million-rmb-win-for-chateau-lafite-rothschild-in-wine-trademark-case\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"China IP Law Update\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-01-30T01:39:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/G237725.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=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2024\/01\/chinas-supreme-peoples-court-upholds-79-million-rmb-win-for-chateau-lafite-rothschild-in-wine-trademark-case\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2024\/01\/chinas-supreme-peoples-court-upholds-79-million-rmb-win-for-chateau-lafite-rothschild-in-wine-trademark-case\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Aaron Wininger\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/person\/cd3c63c8dfee9e4c102809b921868bc5\"},\"headline\":\"China&#8217;s Supreme People&#8217;s Court Upholds 79 Million RMB Win for Ch\u00e2teau Lafite Rothschild in Wine Trademark Case\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-01-30T01:39:25+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-01-30T01:39:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2024\/01\/chinas-supreme-peoples-court-upholds-79-million-rmb-win-for-chateau-lafite-rothschild-in-wine-trademark-case\/\"},\"wordCount\":373,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2024\/01\/chinas-supreme-peoples-court-upholds-79-million-rmb-win-for-chateau-lafite-rothschild-in-wine-trademark-case\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/G237725.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Case\",\"Trademarks\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2024\/01\/chinas-supreme-peoples-court-upholds-79-million-rmb-win-for-chateau-lafite-rothschild-in-wine-trademark-case\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2024\/01\/chinas-supreme-peoples-court-upholds-79-million-rmb-win-for-chateau-lafite-rothschild-in-wine-trademark-case\/\",\"name\":\"China's Supreme People's Court Upholds 79 Million RMB Win for Ch\u00e2teau Lafite Rothschild in Wine Trademark Case - China IP Law Update\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2024\/01\/chinas-supreme-peoples-court-upholds-79-million-rmb-win-for-chateau-lafite-rothschild-in-wine-trademark-case\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2024\/01\/chinas-supreme-peoples-court-upholds-79-million-rmb-win-for-chateau-lafite-rothschild-in-wine-trademark-case\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/G237725.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-01-30T01:39:25+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-01-30T01:39:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2024\/01\/chinas-supreme-peoples-court-upholds-79-million-rmb-win-for-chateau-lafite-rothschild-in-wine-trademark-case\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2024\/01\/chinas-supreme-peoples-court-upholds-79-million-rmb-win-for-chateau-lafite-rothschild-in-wine-trademark-case\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2024\/01\/chinas-supreme-peoples-court-upholds-79-million-rmb-win-for-chateau-lafite-rothschild-in-wine-trademark-case\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/G237725.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/G237725.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2024\/01\/chinas-supreme-peoples-court-upholds-79-million-rmb-win-for-chateau-lafite-rothschild-in-wine-trademark-case\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"China&#8217;s Supreme People&#8217;s Court Upholds 79 Million RMB Win for Ch\u00e2teau Lafite Rothschild in Wine Trademark Case\"}]},{\"@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 &amp; 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":"China's Supreme People's Court Upholds 79 Million RMB Win for Ch\u00e2teau Lafite Rothschild in Wine Trademark Case - 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\/2024\/01\/chinas-supreme-peoples-court-upholds-79-million-rmb-win-for-chateau-lafite-rothschild-in-wine-trademark-case\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"China's Supreme People's Court Upholds 79 Million RMB Win for Ch\u00e2teau Lafite Rothschild in Wine Trademark Case - China IP Law Update","og_description":"In a decision dated September 21, 2023 and only just released, China&#8217;s Supreme People&#8217;s Court (SPC) ruled for Ch\u00e2teau Lafite Rothschild upholding a judgement of 79.17 million RMB. The plaintiff in the first instance, Ch\u00e2teau Lafite Rothschild, believed that Golden Hope Company (\u5357\u4eac\u91d1\u8272\u5e0c\u671b\u9152\u4e1a\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8), Chateau Lafite Company (\u5357\u4eac\u62c9\u83f2\u5e84\u56ed\u9152\u4e1a\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8), Huaxia Company (\u5357\u4eac\u534e\u590f\u8461\u8404\u917f\u9152\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8), Junteng Company (\u6df1\u5733\u5e02\u9a8f\u817e\u9152\u4e1a\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8), Perun Company (\u676d\u5dde\u4f69\u4f26\u8d38\u6613\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8), Zui Niu Company (\u5317\u4eac\u9189\u725b\u9152\u4e1a\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8), and Jiu Sheng Company (\u4e0a\u6d77\u4e45\u5723\u9152\u7c7b\u6709\u9650\u516c\u53f8) used &#8220;LAFEI MANOR&#8221; and &#8220;\u62c9\u83f2\u5e84\u56ed&#8221; to infringe on its trademark rights\u00a0 and damage the reputation ...","og_url":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2024\/01\/chinas-supreme-peoples-court-upholds-79-million-rmb-win-for-chateau-lafite-rothschild-in-wine-trademark-case\/","og_site_name":"China IP Law Update","article_published_time":"2024-01-30T01:39:25+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/G237725.jpg"}],"author":"Aaron Wininger","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Aaron Wininger","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2024\/01\/chinas-supreme-peoples-court-upholds-79-million-rmb-win-for-chateau-lafite-rothschild-in-wine-trademark-case\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2024\/01\/chinas-supreme-peoples-court-upholds-79-million-rmb-win-for-chateau-lafite-rothschild-in-wine-trademark-case\/"},"author":{"name":"Aaron Wininger","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#\/schema\/person\/cd3c63c8dfee9e4c102809b921868bc5"},"headline":"China&#8217;s Supreme People&#8217;s Court Upholds 79 Million RMB Win for Ch\u00e2teau Lafite Rothschild in Wine Trademark Case","datePublished":"2024-01-30T01:39:25+00:00","dateModified":"2024-01-30T01:39:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2024\/01\/chinas-supreme-peoples-court-upholds-79-million-rmb-win-for-chateau-lafite-rothschild-in-wine-trademark-case\/"},"wordCount":373,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2024\/01\/chinas-supreme-peoples-court-upholds-79-million-rmb-win-for-chateau-lafite-rothschild-in-wine-trademark-case\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/G237725.jpg","articleSection":["Case","Trademarks"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2024\/01\/chinas-supreme-peoples-court-upholds-79-million-rmb-win-for-chateau-lafite-rothschild-in-wine-trademark-case\/","url":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2024\/01\/chinas-supreme-peoples-court-upholds-79-million-rmb-win-for-chateau-lafite-rothschild-in-wine-trademark-case\/","name":"China's Supreme People's Court Upholds 79 Million RMB Win for Ch\u00e2teau Lafite Rothschild in Wine Trademark Case - China IP Law Update","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2024\/01\/chinas-supreme-peoples-court-upholds-79-million-rmb-win-for-chateau-lafite-rothschild-in-wine-trademark-case\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2024\/01\/chinas-supreme-peoples-court-upholds-79-million-rmb-win-for-chateau-lafite-rothschild-in-wine-trademark-case\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/G237725.jpg","datePublished":"2024-01-30T01:39:25+00:00","dateModified":"2024-01-30T01:39:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2024\/01\/chinas-supreme-peoples-court-upholds-79-million-rmb-win-for-chateau-lafite-rothschild-in-wine-trademark-case\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2024\/01\/chinas-supreme-peoples-court-upholds-79-million-rmb-win-for-chateau-lafite-rothschild-in-wine-trademark-case\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2024\/01\/chinas-supreme-peoples-court-upholds-79-million-rmb-win-for-chateau-lafite-rothschild-in-wine-trademark-case\/#primaryimage","url":"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/G237725.jpg","contentUrl":"http:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/G237725.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/2024\/01\/chinas-supreme-peoples-court-upholds-79-million-rmb-win-for-chateau-lafite-rothschild-in-wine-trademark-case\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"China&#8217;s Supreme People&#8217;s Court Upholds 79 Million RMB Win for Ch\u00e2teau Lafite Rothschild in Wine Trademark Case"}]},{"@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 &amp; 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\/2886"}],"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=2886"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2886\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2888,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2886\/revisions\/2888"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2886"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2886"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2886"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinaiplawupdate.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=2886"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}