Introduction
In real-world scenarios, instances of forging trademark authorization letters are not uncommon. Such acts may involve impersonating an authorized brand dealer, deceiving online platforms to gain promotional and sales privileges, or engaging in fraudulent activities using these forged documents.
The following is an overview and examination of the characteristics of forgery trademark authorization letters within the framework of Chinese laws and regulations, as well as the legal repercussions involved.
The Legal Aspects of Creating a Forged Trademark Authorization Letter
Forging a trademark authorization letter is typically seen as a method to achieve specific objectives. In legal practice, individuals are penalized based on the actual consequences of their use of the forged letter, which may include trademark infringement, unfair competition, breach of contract, or fraud. If the situation is severe enough to be classified as a crime, it will be prosecuted under criminal law related to trademark or contract fraud. The act of forging a trademark authorization itself is not directly penalized; rather, it is subsumed under the resulting legal violations.
The Impact of Forgery on Judicial Decisions in Trademark Infringement Cases
In trademark infringement cases that involve forged authorization letters, courts often use the act of forgery as evidence to establish that the defendant was aware of the infringing trademark. This awareness indicates that the defendant knowingly engaged in infringement, demonstrating subjective malice. Such knowledge and malice are also considered by the court when determining compensation.
For instance, in the North Face case, the defendant Mei Zhaohui presented a trademark authorization letter purportedly signed by John McGill during a consignment production process. However, it was later revealed through judicial verification that the signature was forged by Mei Zhaohui. The court concluded that Mei Zhaohui had forged the power of attorney without the plaintiff’s consent and had commissioned Haobai Company to produce down jackets that infringed on the plaintiff’s trademark rights, thus constituting trademark infringement. The court determined that Mei Zhaohui’s actions in creating the power of attorney without authorization clearly indicated that he was aware that producing and selling the down jackets was an infringement, reflecting his evident subjective malice.
In the Zhou Heiya case, the Intermediate People’s Court of Yangzhou City in Jiangsu Province determined that Xue Lei, who was the defendant’s legal representative and the husband of the defendant’s operator, admitted to falsifying the power of attorney for Zhou Heiya Company during the trial. This admission further indicated that Fangshu Trading Company’s use of the disputed trademark was not based on the good faith required for legitimate sales, and it was clear that they intended to exploit the goodwill of Zhou Heiya Company. The court considered the forgery of the power of attorney when assessing the defendant’s level of subjective fault and the infringement circumstances, which influenced the calculation of damages for trademark infringement.
In the OPPO case, the defendant unlawfully used the plaintiff’s registered trademark in their Taobao online store to sell goods that violated the plaintiff’s exclusive rights. The plaintiff lodged a complaint against the defendant for intellectual property infringement via the Taobao complaint platform. The court used the defendant’s issuance of the forged power of attorney and contract as the basis for concluding that the sale of headphones bearing the “OPPO” logo constituted trademark infringement.
Opinions from the Administrative and Judicial Authorities
In cases related to the forgery of trademark authorizations, both administrative law enforcement agencies and courts typically do not provide detailed commentary on the forgery itself in their administrative penalty decisions or criminal judgments. Instead, they consider it as part of the broader infringement.
In unfair competition cases, similar to how trademark infringement cases are addressed, the court considers the existence of a forged power of attorney as a factor in assessing the defendant’s intent in cases of unfair competition related to such forgery.
In the General Optoelectronics case, the defendant, Song Gang, exploited his position as the vice president of the Shenzhen Representative Office of General Optoelectronics to use a forged signature on the Power of Attorney without the plaintiff’s consent. He authorized a processing plant to produce similar products for the defendants, Yue Ke Junyu Company and Gilled Company, under the name of a subsidiary of General Optoelectronics. The court determined that Song Gang’s actions in instigating and assisting were crucial to the unfair competition that occurred, and his forgery of the Power of Attorney demonstrated his intent to infringe. Consequently, the court ruled that Song Gang was jointly and severally liable for the unfair competition committed by Yueke Junyu Company and Gilled Company.
Forgery in Instances of Contract Violation
In today’s advanced network environment, a trademark authorization letter serves not only as a valid document to verify the identity of authorized dealers during marketing and sales activities but also as a qualification verification document for online promotions and other activities on various internet platforms.
For instance, in the case of Beijing Baidu Netcom Technology Co., Ltd. v. Debang Logistics Services (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (referred to as “Baidu” and “Debang Shenzhen”), the defendant, Debang Shenzhen, entered into the Baidu Nuomi Network Service Agreement and the Baidu Promotion Service Agreement with Baidu, agreeing to conduct group buying and commercial promotion on the Baidu platform. The company submitted forged trademark authorization certificates and other documents to claim it was authorized by the trademark owner, Debang Logistics Co., Ltd., to use trademark No. 5730598 and Class 39 “Debang Logistics” for promotion on the Baidu Nuomi platform. Baidu contended that Debang Shenzhen had used “Deppon Logistics” without the trademark owner’s consent, submitted falsified authorization materials, breached the contract, and caused significant losses to Baidu, leading to a lawsuit against Debang Shenzhen in the Court of Haidian District, Beijing. After reviewing the case, the court determined that Debang Shenzhen had provided Baidu with fraudulent authorization letters and other qualification documents from Debang Logistics Company to deceitfully obtain approvals, which amounted to a breach of contract.
Conclusion
In summary, in judgments related to the forgery of a trademark power of attorney, courts generally consider the act of forgery as a key factor in assessing subjective malice. Regardless of whether the case results in findings of trademark infringement, unfair competition, breach of contract, or fraud, the act of forging a power of attorney is treated as a means to evaluate subjective malice and the extent of damages.