Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
The General Motors (GM) Daewoo auto firm is suing a Chinese car manufacturer for allegedly copying one of its vehicles. Sources with the Beijing No 1 Intermediate People's Court confirmed yesterday that the court has accepted a lawsuit filed by General Motors (GM) Daewoo against China's Chery Automobile Company. GM is asking for compensation of 80 million yuan (US$9.6 million). GM Daewoo contends that Chery's mini car QQ copied its Matiz and Spark. Chery denies this, saying it developed QQ on its own. The South Korean plaintiff initially began suing the Chinese auto maker in December last year at the Shanghai No 2 Intermediate People's Court. However, the defendant objected on jurisdiction grounds. The Supreme People's Court appointed the Beijing-based court to handle the case, sources in the press office of the Beijing No 1 Intermediate People's Court told China Daily yesterday. Produced by GM Daewoo, the Matiz went on the South Korean market in 1998, according to the bill of indictment. GM Daewoo authorized the Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation in 2003 to produce and sell the Spark on the Chinese mainland on the basis of the design and technology of the Matiz. However, GM Daewoo claimed their investigation results showed the Chery QQ shared a remarkably identical body structure, exterior design, interior design and key components. "Chery even used a camouflaged Matiz car to pass auto tests to acquire authorization from the government over production and sales of QQ," the plaintiff said. GM Daewoo claimed the behaviour of Chery had resulted in unfair competition. A press official surnamed Zhang at the Chery headquarters in East China's Anhui Province told the Beijing Youth Daily that they had not been told of any developments regarding the accusation, the Beijing Youth Daily reported. However, sources with the Chinese automaker insisted that Chery depends on itself for development, instead of copying other firms. Eight months ago, Zhang Zhigang, vice-minister of commerce, said Chery's alleged infringement and unfair competitive behaviour could not be determined according to the Chinese law and evidence provided by GM Daewoo. Zhang Qin, vice-director of the State Intellectual Property Office, also said at a press conference in September that GM Daewoo failed to apply for a patent on its designs in China. Thus, the technology was not protected in China according to the law.
The official also said that only when GM Daewoo had provided sufficient evidence to prove that Chery stole statistics from it could the alleged infringement exist, despite the similarities between the two cars. "Domestic car firms should invent their own products, instead of copying others," Jia Xinguang, chief analyst with the China Automotive Industry Consulting and Development Corp, said yesterday in an interview with China Daily.
The Korean firm said it wanted 80m yuan ($9.7m; 5.1m) in compensation. The case - accepted by a Beijing Court, according to Chinese state media - is sensitive because GM and SAIC are involved in a major joint venture. Damage limitation The QQ appears to be similar to the Daewoo Matiz (and to GM's Chevrolet Spark, which is based on the Matiz). GM Daewoo said tests showed the body structure, interior and exterior design of the QQ and many of its components were very similar to the Matiz. It added that many parts were interchangeable between the two cars. SAIC Chery denied the allegations, saying it spent more than a year developing its QQ car. It added it has up to 24 design patents on the model. GM Daewoo began suing Chery last December in Shanghai, but transferred the suit to Beijing after Chery complained on jurisdiction grounds. GM Daewoo had tried to resolve the dispute through mediation for a year and only resorted to the courts when this failed, the company said.
SAIC, which spent 67m buying car designs from collapsed UK carmaker Rover, held a 20% stake in Chery. But it sold the holding late last year in what was thought to be a damage-limitation exercise.
Lawsuits
1. Toyota Motor Corporation versus Geely.
Accusation: Geely Merrie trademark is a copy of Toyota's trademark. Date: End 2002. Court: Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court, China. Claim: 14 million yuan in compensation. Judgement: The court didn't sustained any of the claims raised by Toyota. (After the court's decision Geely withdraw the Merrie logo.) Outcome: Toyota lost the case.
Honda's claim for compensation but rejected its call for public apology. It ordered Lifan to pay 300.000 yuan (US$ 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.
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.
another Chinese company, Youngman.) Judgement: parties agreed to arbitrate before the Singapore International Arbitration Centre in April 2009.
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.
14. Landrover versus Geely (in fact: versus the Trademark Appeal Board).
Accusation: Geely illegaly filed the trade mark "Land Tiger" (Luhu) in 1999 by the Chinese Bureau of Industry and Commerce when it was in use by Landrover. The Trademark Appeal Board under the State Administration for Industry and Commerce rejected the appeal of Landrover. Landrover is now suing the Board to revoke the Luhu trademark registered by Geely. Date: February 2011. Court: Beijing Municipal No. 1 Intermediate People's Court, China