Lawsuits

1. Toyota Motor Corporation versus Geely.
Accusation: Geely Merrie trademark is a copy of Toyota's trademark.

Date: End 2002.
Court: Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court, China.
Claim: 14 million yuan in compensation.  
Judgement: The court didn't sustained any of the claims raised by Toyota.
(After the court's decision Geely withdraw the Merrie logo.)
Outcome: Toyota lost the case.

2. GM Daewoo Auto & Technology Co. Ltd. versus Chery.
Accusation: Chery's QQ copied the design of the Daewoo's Matiz, the two models are shockingly similar.
GM Daewoo also claimed that Chery used a Spark disguised as a QQ in a crash test for safety.

Date: June 2003, December 2004.
Court: Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court, Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate Court, China.
Claim: 80 million yuan
Settlement: In November 2005 the partners reached a settlement, which solved all the disputes and all the claims have been withdrawn. The Chinese government has played a role in the negotiations, all parties highly appreciated the efforts made by the relevant government authorities. 

3. Honda versus Shuanghuan Auto.
Accusation: Honda accused Shuanghuan's Laibao SRV of copying its CR-V.

Date: November 2003.
Court: Beijing High People's Court, China.
Claim: 100 million yuan.
Judgement: No hearing was ever held at the court.
In March 2007 the China's State Intellectual Property Office made the decision declaring Honda's patent for design invalid, which means that Honda's outer design of the Honda CR-V would not be protected by China's IP laws.

4. Honda versus Lifan .
Accusation: Honda accused Lifan of using the name Hongda on motorcycles.

Date: September 2005.
Court: Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court, China.
Claim: 12,5 million yuan (US$ 1,5 million).
Judgement: The Beijing court ordered Lifan to pay 1,47 million yuan (US$ 177.607) in damages to Honda for placing the Hongda logos on its motorcyles. Lifan was ordered to stop infringing.
Outcome: Lifan lost.

Second accusation: Honda claims that Lifan's LF125T-2D scooter is too similar to a design covered by its own patents.

Date: May 2007.
Court: Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court, China. 
Claim: Honda wanted Lifan to admit the infringement, make a public apology and compensate 500.000 yuan (US$ 64.767).
Judgement: The motorcycle LF100T manufactured by Lifan closely resembled a Honda design. The court upheld Honda's claim for compensation but rejected its call for public apaology. It ordered Lifan to pay 300.000 yuan (US$ 39.000) in damages.
Outcome: Lifan lost.

Date: December 2008.
Court: Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court, China.
Claim: Honda requested a court decision to order Lifan to compensate 727 million yuan of its economic losses and 113 million yuan of reasonable expenses for the case.
Judgement: Lifan shall bear the civil liability of stopping infringement and paying reasonable compensation for the loss of 612.600 yuan because the company has infringed Honda's valid patent in motorcycle manufacturing of some models.
Outcome: Lifan lost.

5. Dongfeng Peugeot-Citroen Automobile Co. Ltd. versus Shanghai-Maple Auto Co. Ltd.
Accusation: Dongfeng-Citroen alleged that Shanghai Maple used Citroen's core chassis technology in producing its models.

Date: November 2005.
Court: Wuhan Intermediate People's Court, China.
Judgement: We couldn't find any result of this case.  

6. Shenyang Jinbei Brilliance versus Qinghuangdao Jincheng Automobile.
Accusation: Jincheng Minibus is a copy of the Jinbei Haise Aiwing.

Date: January 2006
Court: Beijing, China.
Judgement: Jincheng was found liable of copying the exterior appearance of Jinbei's modified HiAce.
Outcome: Jincheng lost.

7. Neoplan (M.A.N. A.G.) versus Zonda Bus & Coach Group.
Accusation: Zonda's A9 Bus was a copy of a Neoplan bus named Starliner.

Date: September 2006.
Court: Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court, China.
Judgement: Zonda Industrial Group was ordered to pay 20 million yuan in compensation to Neoplan. Zonda was also ordered to stop making  & selling the A9 Bus and to pay 1.16 million yuan in legal costs.
Outcome: Zonda lost.

8. BMW versus Shuanghuan and European Importers.
Accusation: Shuanghuan SCEO is a blatant copy of the BMW X5.

Date: June 2008.
Court: Munich, Germany.
Judgement: The court prohibits the importer, China Automobile Deutschland GmbH, from selling the SUV in Germany and China Automobile must destroy all models it still had in its possession.
Outcome: Shuanghuan (China Automobile) lost.

Date: December 2008.
Court: Milan, Italy.
Judgement: The Shuanghuan SCEO large SUV isn't a clone of the BMW X5. BMW lost the court action in Italy against the local importer Martin Motors.
Outcome: BMW lost.

Date: May 2009.
Court: High Court, Munich, Germany.
Judgement: Second court tribunal hold the judgement of June 2008: China Automobile is obliged to pay penalty and destroy imported cars.
Outcome: Shuanghuan (China Automobile) lost.

9. Fiat versus Great Wall.
Accusation: the Great Wall GWPeri is a copy of the Fiat Panda.

Date: July 2008.
Court: Shijiazhung Intermediate People's Court, China.
Judgement: The exterior design of the GWPeri can be easily distinguished from the Panda. Fiat lost and had to pay US$ 1290.- court fees.
Outcome: Fiat lost.

Date: July 2008.
Court: Turin, Italy.
Judgement: Great Wall is banned from selling the GWPeri compact car in the EU. GWPeri is simply a Panda with a different front. The court imposed a euro 15.000.- fine for the first imported GWPeri and Great Wall will be penalized euro 50.000.- for each GWPeri it sends to the EU.
Outcome: Great Wall lost.

Date: January 2009.
Court: Hebei Province People's High Court, China.
Judgement: The Court dismissed a claim by Fiat alleging infringement of a Fiat patent. So the appeal was rejected.
Outcome: Fiat lost.

Date: June 2009.
Court: Shijiazhuang Intermediate People's Court
Accusation: Great Wall declares to have submitted evidence to prove that Fiat once instigated espionage to prowl into its research center and take photos of Peri small car that was still under development.

10. Goldstar versus Proton.
Accusation: Proton is being sued for alleged breach of contract by its former Chinese joint-venture partner Goldstar Heavy Industrial Co. Ltd.

Date: December 2008.
Court: Dongguan Intermediate People's Court, China.
Claim: Goldstar is seeking about one billion yuan (US$ 147 million) in compensation.
(Under joint-venture proposal that was signed in 2002, a plant was to be set up in Dongguan to produce Proton cars. Goldstar failed to obtain a license for the joint venture within three years'time. In 2006 Proton signed an agreement with another Chinese company, Youngman.)
Judgement: parties agreed to arbitrate before the Singapore International Arbitration Centre in April 2009.

11. Daimler A.G. versus Flybo and German importer.
Accusation: Flybo 6000ZK is a copy of the Smart Fortwo.

Date: October 2008.
Court: Stuttgart, Germany.
Judgement: Import of the Flybo 6000ZK by Reva Company into Germany is forbidden. The first Flybo, confiscated by the German customs, had to be destroyed.
Outcome: Flybo and its importer lost.

12. Daimler A.G. versus Shuanghuan and its European importers.
Accusation: Shuanghuan Noble (Bubble) is a copy of the Smart Fortwo.

Date: December 2008.
Court: Bologna, Italy.
Claim: Martin Motors (the importer) is forbidden to exhibit the Bubble at the Bologna Auto Show.
Temporary judgement: The court prevented Shuanghuan from showing their Bubble from making its public appearance at the Bologna Show. Martin Motors brought the Bubble to the parking lot of the Show anyway, despite the court order.

Date: May 2009.
Court: Piraeus, Greece.
Judgement: An informed buyer would not confuse the Noble with the Smart Fortwo. The Noble differs significantly in technical specification from the Smart.
Outcome: Daimler A.G. lost.

13. Nanjing Automobile Corporation (MG) versus Sports and Racing Europe (MG XPower).
Accusation: Sports and Racing Europe were infringing the MG marks for which they had no entitlement.

Date: February 2010.
Court: High Court, London, Great Britain.
Judgement: Nanjing Automobile Corporation had acquired the rights to the MG trademarks and logos when it bought the assets of MG Rover in 2005.
Outcome: MG XPower (Sports and Racing Europe) lost.