The Shanghai Association of Consumers' Rights and Interests Protection is sued for the first time in its 18-year history.
Shanghai Dajin Science and Technology Co Ltd has filed a lawsuit claiming a warning the association issued damaged the company's reputation.
The Huangpu District People's Court has accepted the case.
Dajin wants the association to withdraw the warning and make a public apology in all the media that published the warning and on its Website. No compensation is sought.
On July 30, the association, an organization representing consumers' interests, issued a warning to consumers to pay attention to trademarks and producers when buying goods.
It said some salespeople purposely confuse consumers by recommending electric appliances with trademarks similar to famous brands. Their behavior could mislead consumers, it said.
The association cited the Dajin Banben air conditioner produced by Dajin, a privately-owned company, as an example.
A consumer surnamed Chen complained that a seller misled her into taking the Dajin product as that of the Japan-invested Daikin Air Conditioning Co Ltd. Two Chinese characters in the trademarks are the same.
The company claims the association, without careful investigation, indicated Dajin had illegally sold its products.
Dajin staff said the association also accused the company of purposely making use of the reputation of Daikin.
A staffer said Dajin Banben is a trademark authorized by the State Trademark Administration.
It was transferred legally in 2002 by Shanghai Liansheng Trade Co Ltd, which registered the trademark in 2001. Dajin also registered the trademark in Japan.
Zhao Jiaoli, secretary-general of the association, told a news conference yesterday it is legal for the association to issue notices and warnings to protect the rights and interests of consumers.
"We publicized the warning after investigation and analysis of the complaints. All the content is objective, true and legal," she said.
Lawyer Tao Wuping said it is hard to blame the association for damaging the firm's reputation because the warning targeted the sellers rather than the producer.