-
Wine Jobs
Assistant Manager
Assistant Cider Maker
Viticulture and Enology...
-
Wine Country Real Estates
Winery in Canada For Sale
-
Wine Barrels & Equipment
75 Gallon Stainless Steel...
Wanted surplus/ excess tin...
Winery Liquidation Auction...
-
Grapes & Bulk Wines
2022 Chardonnay
2023 Pinot Noir
2022 Pinot Noir
-
Supplies & Chemicals
Planting supplies
Stagg Jr. Bourbon - Batch 12
-
Wine Services
Wine
Sullivan Rutherford Estate
Clark Ferrea Winery
-
World Marketplace
Canned Beer
Wine from Indonesia
Rare Opportunity - Own your...
- Wine Jobs UK
- DCS Farms LLC
- ENOPROEKT LTD
- Liquor Stars
- Stone Hill Wine Co Inc
Castel loses trademark infringement case in China
Jul 18, 2013
(Decanter) - French wine merchant Castel has lost its lengthy legal battle over the company's trademark in China.
The case was a trademark infringement lawsuit brought against Castel by the Chinese wine distributor Panati Wine (Shanghai) Co., Ltd regarding the Chinese trademark Kasite (卡斯特), the phonetic rendition of Castel in Chinese.
According to Chinese media, the Zhejiang Provincial Higher People’s Court ruled Castel must stop using the Chinese trademark Kasite on its wines.
Castel also has to pay a fine of CNY33.73 million (over £3.6 million) to Panati Wine and its Spanish-Chinese owner LI Daozhi, and well as issuing a public apology through the China Industry & Commerce News publication.
The basis of the case dates back to the late 1990s, when Wenzhou-born entrepreneur LI Daozhi started the wine distribution company Panati Wine to introduce Spanish wines to the Chinese wine market, and applied for the registration of trademark Kasite in 1998. The application was granted in 2000.
In 2008, LI established a secondary company Cavesmaitre Wine Co., Ltd with its Chinese name as Kasite. Unlike the Panati Wine, the new company focused on importing French wine to China under the brand name Kasite.
Castel began bottling wine in China in 1999, and the Chinese translation of its name was known as Kasite by Chinese wine consumers. Castel successfully submitted a request to cancel the trademark in 2005 for the reason that it had not been used for three years, but later LI appealed and won it back.
Comments: