Foreo has strengthened its stance against fake versions of its facial cleansing devices with a series of wins in court.
The Swedish beauty-tech brand has been the target of counterfeiters for a number of years, after being founded in 2013 and gaining a mass following for its Luna device.
As of Q1 2022, Foreo said it had received a favourable ruling in the first instance of its litigation against K.Skin.
Hangzhou Yuhang District People’s Court stated in the ruling that the defendants are liable to indemnify Foreo for a total of RMB¥4.3 million (US$651,000) in economic losses.
The same court also ruled again in Foreo’s favour in March, in a case against Ofila, and the defendants are liable to indemnify for ¥900,000 ($136,000) for the same cause.
In April, the brand walked away with yet another win, this time in the Zhejiang High People’s Court. A third company, Feimooi, was ordered to pay the brand ¥500,000 ($75,700) for economic losses.
“These consistent wins in the war against criminal counterfeiting not only assist us in protecting the good name of our brand, but lead the way for other brands who are making the same efforts,” said Foreo’s General Manager, China, Davor Soldo.
In 2019, Foreo was awarded ¥3m ($450k) in 2019, when a Chinese company was found guilty of ripping off its facial cleansing device.
This was the largest counterfeit-related payout in design patent infringement in the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court.
Foreo said it is continuing the fight against counterfeiting to not only protect the brand, but also to protect its customers.
It claims that copycat brands have no control over the quality of the counterfeits being produced, with less stringent hygiene standards and factory conditions.
“The Unfair Competition Law, amended in 2019, has played an important role in the anti-copy actions we have taken in the past three years,” said Foreo’s Global Legal Director, Kelsay Tang.
“This rang especially true in March 2022, when the Supreme People's Court of China released the Interpretation on several issues concerning the application of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.”