subject: "thin Shoes" Notice "nike Shoes" End [print this page] The court found for the plaintiff and defendant groups of different air max 2009 products, there is no competition.
Beijing is the Institute of Mechanics of the human body has sued Nike ad, "pseudo-science, false propaganda", Nike won the first instance in the case. In that case a few days before the first instance verdict, the plaintiff alleged unfair competition on the grounds Youyi, Nike sued again. Recently, the Beijing High Court of Final Appeal dismissed the action being requested of the Institute, that Nike does not exist with the competition.
Nike will again be a case pending prosecution
November 14, 2005 Xicheng District Court dismissed for lack of evidence of first instance is the claim of the Institute. Prior to that, of the Institute is to Nike (Suzhou) Sports Goods Co., Ltd. and the U.S. Nike to court, that its official website, training sites and partner sites on the Nike Air shoes and sports shoes feature elastic column done a lot of false propaganda, saying it makes "run faster", "jump higher" is a "high-speed accelerator breakthrough" and "run king," could "quickly regain their strength," and so on. The publicity contrary to accepted scientific principles, the lack of basis in fact, false propaganda.
For a few days before sentencing in this case, are unfair competition of the Institute of Youyi grounds, once again sued the two Nike. Is in the prosecution of the Institute, said its long-term function of footwear products in basic research, product development and management. Two acts of the defendant's false propaganda on the same business in the air max 24-7 shoes of the Institute is constituted unfair competition and infringed upon legitimate rights and interests.
Court found that both consumer object has not Nike Suzhou and the United States considered that, with the working of the competitive relationship exists between the Institute, is the research and development of the only shoe of its own units, and its Web site fitness and sold shoes and other products are also non-athletic shoes, both products of non-similar products for groups are not the same as Nike's products are suitable for athletes and sports enthusiasts, etc., but are consumers of the products is the medical the field of minority health.
Nike Court of First Instance accepted the views of the Institute is rejected the prosecution. The Institute was subsequently filed this appeal.
Beijing High Court has examined, are the products of the main functions of research management is "physical training function" and "low back pain, the rehabilitation of cervical function"; and Nike Suzhou and the United States related products for sports shoes and other sporting goods. The main function of the two related air max LTD products, for groups, consumer objects, etc. There are quite different. Thus, different products in the market as business entities, the two do not have competition. Accordingly, the maintenance of the verdict.
