New Balance’s second trademark infringement lawsuit against a Fujian-based athletic company seeking 500,000 yuan ($78,784) was tried at Huangpu District People’s Court Tuesday, after the US footwear producer won a similar battle over the Chinese company five years ago.

The case was heard after the Chinese company, Niubanlun Athletic, was sued for a second time last year by the US footwear producer. New Balance launched the latest action after it found Niubanlun Athletic products at a Shanghai department store infringing on its copyrights. 

New Balance claimed that Niubanlun Athletic copied its trademark “N” logo and used it on their products – in the same position, near where the laces tie up on both sides of the shoe – that sell throughout China.

The US footwear producer, which has its Chinese name registered as “Niubalun,” also accused the Chinese company of copying New Balance’s Chinese name on Niubanlun Athletic’s products.

New Balance said that the Chinese company took advantage of its copyrights to produce cheaper goods for customers.

Niubanlun Athletic, however, said that its Chinese name, the same as the one used by New Balance, had been long adopted for its products back in 2007, under its founder, Jinjiang Qiuzhi Dongya Footwear Company. Niubanlun Athletic added that its company name was officially adopted two years later in 2009.

But, New Balance said that its Chinese name was theirs from years before, since 1995. The US manufacturer also said that its “N” logo was registered in China even earlier, in 1983.

New Balance summed up the day in court by arguing that Niubanlun has since been using its trademarked name and logo with the intent of confusing and deceiving customers.

Niubanlun Athletic retorted, saying that its logo is not identical to that used by New Balance, adding that the US footwear producer failed to prove its products were well-known in China before the Chinese company was established in 2007.

Niubanlun was set up four years ago, after losing a similar copyright infringement case with New Balance in 2006, when it existed under a different name, New Barlon.

The court said that the verdict would be announced soon, but no specific timeline was given.