"Disrupting" rankings? Shenzhen sellers sued by Amazon in US court

Recently, Dreame Technology sued Roborock Technology in Germany, which attracted attention in the industry. Shortly after the lawsuit was concluded, another overseas lawsuit between Chinese brands occurred.

Recently, ZEPP and Anhui Huami Information Technology Co., Ltd. (Hami Technology) sued Shenzhen KOSPET and Amazwear Technology Co., Ltd. in a California court in the United States.

According to the data, ZEPP launched AMAZFIT smart watches and wearable devices in 2015. So far, ZEPP has shipped more than 200 million units and its products have been sold to more than 90 countries around the world. At the same time, AMAZFIT has become the leading brand of Amazon's wearable products. Huami Technology was founded in 2013. The indictment shows that Huami is an indirect subsidiary of Hong Kong ZEPP Holdings Co., Ltd. (Hong Kong), and Hong Kong ZEPP Holdings Co., Ltd. is the parent company of ZEPP.

Online data shows that Shenzhen Sibite was established in 2018 and is mainly engaged in the research and development and sales of electronic products, digital products, and communication products. Amazwear Technology Inc. (USA) is its affiliated company, responsible for the software development and technical support of Sibite smart watches. Sibite and its AMAZTIM series of products also perform well on Amazon.

Huami and ZEPP's lawsuits against Sibit and Amazwear mainly involve "patent infringement", "trademark infringement" and "unfair competition". The products of Sibit against include but are not limited to AMAZTIM M2, AMAZTIM M3, AMAZTIM M3 ULTRA, KOSPET TANK M2, KOSPET TANK M3, KOSPET TANK M3 ULTRA, etc.

The indictment mentioned that Huami and ZEPP believed that Sibit and Amazwear, knowing that the 693 patent (patent number 9729693, patent name: Determining measurement confidence of data collected from wearable device sensors) belonged to ZEPP, still used the patent to manufacture (goods), use, sell (goods), and provide them to the United States without ZEPP's consent.

In addition, Huami and ZEPP also believe that the AMAZ TIM series under Amaz Wear has infringed the trademark rights of ZEPP's product AMAZ FIT when they have been informed . According to the indictment, Huami issued a cease and desist notice to Amazwear on December 26, 2023 .

(Picture from the indictment of ZEPP and Huami)

The relevant evidence in the indictment mentioned that on the Amazon product page of Amazwear, a user left a comment indicating that there was confusion between AMAZFIT (Huami) and AMAZTIM (Speed). At the same time, when searching for "AMAZTIM owner" on Google, the result showed that its owner was ZEPP, which also showed that there was confusion between AMAZTIM (Speed) and AMAZFIT (Huami).

(Picture from the indictment of ZEPP and Huami)

In addition, Huami and ZEPP also believe that Sibit and Amazwear purchased advertisements from Amazon for the keyword "AMAZFIT" (Huami) as a smartwatch-related keyword. When searching for "AMAZFIT" (Huami) on Amazon, AMAZTIM (Sibit) smartwatches will appear before AMAZFIT (Huami). This behavior has caused consumers to confuse the two brands.

(Picture from the indictment of ZEPP and Huami)

The indictment also mentioned that Huami and ZEPP believed that the actions of Sibite and Amazwear might mislead consumers into thinking that there was a connection between the two, and might cause consumers to misunderstand and misunderstand information such as the origin and source of Sibite and Amazwear products.

At the same time, Huami and ZEPP also believe that the actions of Sibite and Amazwear violated Section 1720 of the California Business and Professions Code, which is fraudulent , unfair, and illegal practices.

In the indictment, Huami and ZEPP expressed the hope that the court would be able to stop the infringement by Sibite and Amazwear and support their claims against Sibite and Amazwear.

At present, the court date of the case is still unknown, and the outcome of the case is still uncertain. But there is no doubt that in recent years, more and more brands have joined the ranks of rights protection, which also means that cross-border sellers must be careful when selecting products to avoid "infringement" incidents. At the same time, they must also pay attention to the layout of overseas intellectual property rights to protect their own rights.

litigation

USA

Seller