Vans, Inc. is a globally famous brand of casual shoes and apparel, and its 'VANS' series of trademarks enjoy high recognition on footwear. In a trademark infringement case tried in 2022 by the Rui'an People's Court of Zhejiang Province, the court found that the defendant had sold large quantities of shoes bearing counterfeit 'VANS' signs on e-commerce platforms, with huge infringement profits and serious circumstances, and applied punitive damages by reference to three times the infringement profits, awarding RMB 2.42 million; the Wenzhou Intermediate People's Court of Zhejiang affirmed on second instance. The case is a representative example of punitive damages in e-commerce counterfeiting.
Case Overview
Vans owns the 'VANS' series of trademarks, registered for footwear and other goods, which enjoy high recognition among the relevant public through long-term operation and promotion. Through routine e-commerce monitoring, the plaintiff found that multiple online stores were selling shoes bearing the 'VANS' sign at prices markedly below the genuine article, conducted notarized purchases and produced genuine-versus-fake comparison reports, and then filed suit, alleging trademark infringement and requesting punitive damages.
The court found that the accused goods differed markedly from genuine products in material, workmanship, labeling, and packaging, and constituted use of signs identical to the registered trademark on identical goods without permission, thereby infringing the trademark; the defendant made a business of operating online stores, continuously selling infringing goods in batches with substantial profits, constituting malicious infringement under serious circumstances.
Issues in Dispute
- Whether the accused goods were counterfeit and whether the defendant's conduct constituted trademark infringement;
- Whether the conditions for punitive damages were met;
- How to determine the 'base' and the 'multiplier' for punitive damages.
Judgments and Case Numbers
The Rui'an People's Court of Zhejiang Province found trademark infringement under serious circumstances, set the damages base by reference to the infringement profits, calculated punitive damages at three times, and awarded RMB 2,428,226 in economic losses; the accused online store separately paid RMB 267,561 in another case. After the defendant appealed, the Wenzhou Intermediate People's Court of Zhejiang Province affirmed on second instance; the judgment was rendered in August 2022.
It should be noted truthfully that public reports did not disclose the complete case number of this case; the facts above come from a People's Court Daily report of August 2022 (reposted by People's Daily Online on August 23, 2022).
A related case involving the same brand was tried by the Chengdu Intermediate People's Court: first instance (2021) Chuan 0193 Min Chu No. 5246, second instance (2022) Chuan 01 Min Zhong No. 4100, selected into the Top 10 Typical Cases of IP Judicial Protection 2022 of the Chengdu IP Tribunal (source: Chengdu Court Network).
Key Takeaways
- E-commerce counterfeiting is a high-frequency scenario for punitive damages: page sales figures, store back-end data, and transaction records obtained from platforms can all serve as the basis for calculating infringement profits;
- The genuine-versus-fake comparison report is the core evidence: complaints or suits based on screenshots alone rarely convince a court that goods are 'counterfeit'—notarized purchases plus physical comparison complete the evidentiary chain;
- The base matters more than the multiplier: only a solidly calculated base makes the three- or five-times amplification meaningful;
- Punitive damages must be actively requested and proven by the rights holder: courts generally do not apply it on their own initiative—the complaint should expressly state 'punitive damages are requested' and prove malice and serious circumstances.
Lessons for Businesses
For rights holders, e-commerce counterfeiting enforcement should form a closed loop of 'monitoring detection—notarized purchase—genuine-versus-fake comparison—platform complaint—litigation recovery', taking care to fix physical evidence before complaining. For operators, selling goods bearing others' famous trademarks requires keeping a complete chain of authorization and purchase documentation; once found to have knowingly sold counterfeits continuously, in addition to base damages, they face multiplicatively amplified punitive damages, and administrative penalties or even criminal liability may follow in parallel.
If you need these procedures handled for you, you may book the trademark monitoring service of a filed trademark agent on MyTMBee, with full assistance from material preparation through filing and follow-up.