Against the backdrop of increasingly fierce global competition in pharmaceutical industry innovation and the accelerated transformation and upgrading of China's pharmaceutical industry, Intellectual property protection has become a key guarantee for promoting pharmaceutical innovation. The Chinese insulin market had long been monopolized by multinational pharmaceutical companies until 2002 when Company A successfully developed the first domestically produced third-generation insulin — "Changxiulin" (Insulin Glargine Injection ), which broke this situation. Recently, the trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute case between Company A and Company B concluded, with the court fully supporting the plaintiff's claim for 60 million yuan in compensation. This case not only set a new high for trademark infringement compensation in the domestic insulin field but also attracted attention due to its involvement with the particularity of the pharmaceutical industry and public health safety.

[Case]

Company A was established in 1998 and is a domestic and international leader in the development, research, and production of biosynthetic human insulin and its analogs. In 2002, the company developed the first domestically produced third-generation insulin injection, "Changxiulin" insulin injection. For more than ten years thereafter, its "Changxiulin" insulin injection has been the only domestically produced insulin glargine injection on the Chinese market , and the only domestic brand among the top five brands in the third-generation insulin market share.

Company B is a pharmaceutical enterprise producing Chinese and Western patent medicines and biological drugs, mainly producing second-generation insulin products. Since Company A began using and registering a series of "Changxiulin," "Suxiulin," "Ruixiulin" trademarks in 2005, Company B subsequently registered the "Changshulin," "Sushulin," "Ruishulin" trademarks in related product categories and used the "Changshulin" trademark on insulin glargine injection products, using packaging similar to Company A's and sold nationwide.

Company A believed that the above actions by Company B constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition, and thus filed a lawsuit demanding Company B stop the infringement, compensate for losses of 90 million yuan and reasonable expenses of over 810,000 yuan incurred to stop the infringement, and issue an apology and eliminate the impact.

Why was "Changshulin" deemed infringing? How did the court determine Company B's "malice"?

The court held that, the "Changxiulin" insulin injection trademark, packaging, decoration, and product name, through Company A's long-term promotion and use, have gained high recognition and influence. Based on facts such as the plaintiff's market share, sales revenue, tax payments, net profit, sales volume, sales scope, and the market reputation of the "Changxiulin" trademark, it is sufficient to determine that before the defendant applied to register the "Changshulin" trademark, the "Changxiulin" trademark was widely known to the relevant public in China, meeting the conditions of a well-known trademark under the Trademark Law, and is a well-known trademark. 。

"Changshulin" differs from "Changxiulin" by only one character and is highly similar in pronunciation, character form, and meaning, which is likely to cause confusion. Referring to the "Trademark Examination Standards," it is recognized that altering part of a well-known trademark's character form still constitutes similarity. The defendant Company B was once a shareholder of Company A and was aware of the market influence of "Changxiulin," yet still registered and used a similar trademark and continued the infringement after the plaintiff's warning, showing obvious malice. 仍继续侵权，恶意明显 The accused product adopts a blue main color tone, layout, and font design similar to "Changxiulin," with a highly similar overall visual effect, causing confusion and misidentification among the relevant public, constituting trademark infringement and unfair competition.

The court further pointed out that insulin is a typical easily confused drug, included in high-alert drug lists in many countries, with special and complex usage and dosage; slight differences in dosage or blood drug concentration may endanger life and health safety. Insulin products from different manufacturers differ in ingredients, dosage forms, specifications, and supporting usage. Considering Company B's malicious infringement and the severity of the circumstances, and taking into account punitive damages, the court ultimately ordered Company B to compensate Company A 60 million yuan in losses and over 810,000 yuan in reasonable expenses.

Legal provisions link

  Article 57 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China: The following acts constitute infringement of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark: (2) Using a trademark similar to a registered trademark on the same goods without the permission of the trademark registrant, or using the same or similar trademark on similar goods, which is likely to cause confusion; (3) Selling goods that infringe the exclusive right to use a registered trademark; (7) Causing other damage to the exclusive right to use another person's registered trademark.

Article 13 Provides cross-category protection for well-known trademarks registered in China. It prohibits others from copying, imitating, or translating well-known trademarks.

Article 63 The amount of compensation for infringement of the exclusive right to use a trademark shall be determined according to the actual losses suffered by the right holder due to the infringement; if actual losses are difficult to determine, it may be determined according to the profits obtained by the infringer from the infringement; if the losses of the right holder or the profits of the infringer are difficult to determine, the amount may be reasonably determined with reference to multiples of the trademark license fee. For malicious infringement of the exclusive right to use a trademark with serious circumstances, the compensation amount may be determined at not less than one time and not more than five times the amount determined according to the above methods.

Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China: Operators shall not use identical or similar marks to the commodity names, packaging, decoration, etc., of others that have a certain influence without authorization, causing confusion or misleading the public to believe that the goods are those of others or have a specific connection with others.

Article 2 Operators shall abide by the principle of good faith in market transactions.

Article 16 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Trademark Civil Dispute Cases" When determining the amount of compensation, factors such as the trademark's reputation, the subjective malice of the infringement, and the consequences of the infringement may be considered.

"Trademark Examination and Trial Standards" For goods related to public health such as pharmaceuticals and food, the examination of trademark similarity is stricter.