Norwood wine company slapped with huge fines for copyright infringement now faces being shut down by Penfolds
A saga involving Penfolds pursuing a copycat wine producer through the courts in Australia and China appears to be nearing an end.
- Copycat or coincidence? How the court battle began
- Rush Rich registered more than 250 trademarks
- Penfolds copycat hit with $800,000 in penalties
A Norwood company slapped with huge fines for infringing the copyright of Penfolds wines faces being wound up after failing to pay court-ordered damages.
Treasury Wine Estates, which owns the Penfolds brand, has lodged an application to wind up Australia Rush Rich Winery over non-payment of a debt of $375,302.34.
Penfolds earlier this year won copyright infringement cases in both China and Australia against Rush Rich, which was ordered not to use the “Ben Fu” trademark, which is used as it sounds similar to Penfolds and is a brand Penfolds itself has been using in China since before Rush Rich was even set up.
In the Australian Federal Court judgment in May, Treasury was awarded $351,916.75 in damages plus interest and costs.
Treasury has now lodged an action seeking to wind up Rush Rich for not paying that money.
Treasury said in May the judgment found that:
1/ Rush Rich’s various claims in relation to the Australian wine industry — for example that they were “the largest and most famous winery in Australia” and “the symbol of Australian wine” — were false and misleading and constituted unfair competition;
2/ Rush Rich had acted in bad faith to mislead consumers into believing that they had a relationship with the Penfolds brand;
3/ Rush Rich had infringed on the Penfolds trademark.
Treasury said at the time that a Chinese court had ordered the relevant Rush Rich entities to immediately stop any activities that constitute unfair competition, and make a public statement in the mainstream magazine China Wine — as well as on its official WeChat account — noting the outcome of the decision and apologising to Treasury.
Treasury was also awarded $426,000 in compensation by the Chinese court.
Until recently Rush Rich had a website selling wine under another brand but that appears to have disappeared.
Owner Vincent Zhao has always asserted his innocence, and last year said this company had the right to use the disputed images and words which the case revolved around.
“We are an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and when we began, our main client in China was the owner of the trademark, translated directly as Rush Rich Winery,’’ Mr Zhao said.
“This is the main reason why we chose ‘Rush Rich’ to be the company’s name.
“Treasury Wine Estate’s trademark infringement claims, contrary to the picture that has been painted in the media, revolve around the use of the Chinese characters on the Chinese small label on the back of our wine bottles, which is a direct translation of our company name ‘Rush Rich Winery’.
“These Chinese characters have been trademarked in China and we have been authorised by the holder of the trademark in China to use it on products exported to China.”
Treasury said in early 2018 it believed Rush Rich was buying bulk wine and then exporting it “under labels that copy the look of Penfolds wines’’.
Its win in the Beijing Court contradicted Mr Zhao’s claims.
Treasury said the court had affirmed the decision of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board that “this (trade) mark was filed in bad faith and through fraudulent means’’.
“In reaching this decision, the court noted that the Rush Rich group had registered more than 250 trademarks, including the disputed mark, which were similar to other famous brands,’’ Treasury said at the time.
“It was therefore clear to the Court that Rush Rich had acted improperly in seeking registration of the Ben Fu Winery mark and that they were in breach of Chinese trademark laws.
“This mirrors similar actions taken by IP Australia in recent months to reject further trademark applications filed by Rush Rich on the grounds of bad faith.
“These results indicate the increasingly tenuous nature of Rush Rich’s claims to its trademarks, which are clearly intended to unfairly benefit from the prior reputation of the Penfolds brand.’’
The Advertiser could not contact Mr Zhao.
cameron.england@news.com.au