Recently, the United States Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a ruling that only the use of others' trademarks as bidding keywords does not constitute trademark infringement. The plaintiff, 1-800 Contacts, is an online contact lens retailer whose website is 1800contacts.com and is the owner of trademarks such as "1800 Contacts" and "1800contacts.com." Defendant JAND, Inc., which operates under the name "Warby Parker," is an online and physical eyewear retailer that recently entered the online contact lens market, selling contact lenses through warbyparker.com and in stores.
2022-07-29
Does using another person's trademark as a search keyword constitute trademark infringement?
Recently, Yueqing Court in Zhejiang Province heard a trademark infringement dispute, the defendant of an Anhui Internet information company's infringement made a first-instance judgment. The plaintiff Yueqing City, A catering company for A fried chicken series trademark owner, opened a number of stores across the country.
2022-07-21
Demonstration of cases | True and false "Sofia" trademarks settled in the hammer: 8.3 million yuan!
Sophia Home Co., LTD. (referred to as Sophia Company) was established in 2003, the main products are cabinet customized home. Since 2016, the company has found that three companies in Hunan have used "Sophia", "Sophia Wooden door" and "Sophia wooden door" on the same or similar product doors/wooden doors as Sophia without authorization. Sesame Blossom "trademark and product promotion and sales, website construction, investment, etc., resulting in consumer confusion and misidentification. Sophia then filed trademark infringement and unfair competition lawsuits against the three companies.
2022-07-20
In THE process of applying for the registration of the trademark "THE QIXIA APPLE BRANDY", the State Intellectual Property Office of the defendant held that the trademark violated the provisions of Article 10, paragraph 1 (7) of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Law) and was deceptive, which could easily cause the public to misidentify the quality and other characteristics of the commodity or the origin of the product. Therefore, the trademark application is rejected. The plaintiff argued that its trademark was not deceptive and filed a lawsuit to vacate the decision against it, requiring the defendant to make a new decision.
2022-07-19
A Shenzhen company was fined 1 million yuan for copying unique packaging
Shenzhen Bolinda Technology Co., Ltd. v. defendant Shenzhen Aitengda Electronic Materials Co., LTD., Zhuhai Zhongding Chemical Co., Ltd. unauthorized use of well-known products unique packaging, decoration disputes
2022-07-19
Really? ! Playing music like this is an infringement?
This case is a dispute over infringement of the right of information network dissemination of works.
2022-07-19
On July 15, Shenzhen Huada Intelligent Manufacturing Technology Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as "Huada Intelligent Manufacturing", MGI), a subsidiary of Shenzhen Huada Group, announced that the company and global gene sequencer giant Illumina reached a settlement of all pending litigation in the United States.
2022-07-16
Move the hand, the letter "E" changes the letter "L", the ordinary bag becomes a brand-name bag, what design is so "clever"? Was it deliberate or just a coincidence? Recently, Guangzhou Huadu Court announced the trademark infringement dispute.
2022-07-16
Recently, The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court (hereinafter referred to as the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court) made a judgment of first instance on the dispute over trademark infringement and unfair competition between the plaintiffs Xiaomi Technology Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Xiaomi Technology Co., LTD.) and Xiaomi Communication Technology Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Xiaomi Communication Co., LTD.) and the defendants Zhou Moumou and Shanghai Dreamseeking Information Technology Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Dreamseeking Co., LTD.). It was found that the defendant Zhou Mou's behavior constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition, and Zhou Mou was sentenced to compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 500,000 yuan. After the verdict, neither party appealed, and the case has taken effect.
2022-07-16
Telephone：
Telephone：+86-755-82566227、82566717、13751089600
Head Office：13 / F, Building 14, Longhua Science and Technology Innovation Center (Mission Hills), No. 8 Golf Avenue, Guanlan Street, Longhua District, Shenzhen
Head Office：
13 / F, Building 14, Longhua Science and Technology Innovation Center (Mission Hills), No. 8 Golf Avenue, Guanlan Street, Longhua District, Shenzhen
Subsidiary Company：2808, Block B2, Yuexiu Xinghui Junbo, No.18 Tazihu East Road, Jiangan District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province
Subsidiary Company：
2808, Block B2, Yuexiu Xinghui Junbo, No.18 Tazihu East Road, Jiangan District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province
Service Number
Subscription Number
Copyright ©2016 Shenzhen Shenkexin patent Agency Co., LTD All rights reserved | 粤ICP备2021174526号
Copyright ©2016 深圳市深可信专利代理有限公司 版权所有 | 粤ICP备2021174526号 SEO标签
Copyright ©2016 深圳市深可信专利代理有限公司 版权所有
