A Chinese outdoor vendor has been fined 300,000 RMB for using the logo of leading Chinese electric vehicle manufacturer NIO as the vent design on its barbecue grills, as per a judgment issued by the Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province on November 22.
The court ruled that the barbecue grills produced by Zhejiang BSWolf Outdoor Products Co., Ltd., featured vents resembling NIO Inc.’s vehicle logo, which constituted trademark infringement. As a result, NIO was awarded 300,000 RMB in compensation.
Earlier this year, NIO sued BSWolf at the Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court, alleging that BSWolf used NIO's registered trademark No. 20259564 “
” without permission on the barbecue grills it produced and sold. This unauthorized use caused public confusion, significant economic losses, and negative impacts on NIO. NIO initially sought over 2 million RMB in compensation.
NIO presented evidence showing that many consumers had mistaken the allegedly infringing barbecue grills for NIO’s products. NIO also argued that its registered trademark No. 20259564 should be recognized as a well-known trademark, entitling it to cross-class protection rights.
BSWolf contended that the disputed logo was merely a vent design on the barbecue grill and did not serve to identify the product’s origin, thus not infringing on NIO’s trademark rights. They also claimed that their barbecue grills fell under a different category than the goods covered by NIO’s trademark, which would not confuse consumers.
Upon review, the court determined that according to Article 14 of the Chinese Trademark Law and considering NIO’s high and widespread reputation, NIO’s registered trademark was recognized as a well-known trademark. Additionally, the disputed logo was not a common industry vent shape. The defendant BSWolf failed to provide a reasonable explanation for using the disputed logo as a vent design, indicating an intent to associate with the trademark in question. The use of a logo similar to NIO’s trademark on the disputed product could easily mislead the relevant public into believing there was a specific connection between the product and NIO, causing confusion. Furthermore, the defendant’s use of the disputed logo diluted the trademark’s established function of identifying product origin, thereby infringing upon the exclusive rights of the registered trademark.
As a result, the court ordered the defendant to pay NIO 300,000 RMB in economic damages and an additional 15,840 RMB in other costs.
A representative for NIO stated on December 4 that NIO has its own line of outdoor camping products. Some consumers have already mistakenly believed that the products sold by BSWolf were NIO products. If there are quality issues, it could greatly harm NIO’s brand image.
A representative for BSWolf stated that the company has not yet decided whether to appeal. He mentioned that the first-instance judgment has not yet come into effect, so it is not appropriate to comment on the result.
