“Trent Su "or Trent"?
"Master Kong" or "Kang Shuaifu"?
"LI-NING" or "LI-MING"?
This phenomenon of "touching porcelain" well-known trademarks with a single word difference not only insults the intelligence of consumers, but also touches the red line of the law.
Mention "Supor", we all know it is very famous, China's largest cookware research and development manufacturer.
In 2002, Supor was identified as "China's well-known trademark", which is also the first well-known trademark in China's cookware industry. In 2004, on the 10th anniversary of its establishment, Supor officially landed on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange and became a member of the army of listed companies.
However, with the fame, Supor has encountered many cottage problems. There are many "Suber", "Suji", "Suber" in the market... The porcelain products not only make it difficult for consumers to distinguish, but also violate the brand equity of Supor!
To this end, Supor initiated trademark rights litigation!
Zhejiang Supor Co., Ltd. found that an electrical appliance business department sold a cooker named "Subai", the trademark of the goods sold is similar to the registered trademark of Supor, so on the ground of trademark infringement, it was sued to Jinjiang Court.
Supor said that the defendant's shop sold a stove called "Subai er", and its outer packaging carton was printed with "Subai er" words. The upper left corner of the front of the cooker is affixed with a trademark logo in both Chinese and English. The English on the logo is completely consistent with the English on the trademark of the well-known brand "Supor". In the Chinese logo, only the word "white" in the middle is different from the word "Bo" of "Supor".
The defendant believes that its sales are "Subaier" cookware, did not violate the "Supor" trademark rights, and even if the infringement, the plaintiff should Sue "Subaier" cookware manufacturers.
The court held that, in addition to the Chinese character "Bai" and the plaintiff "Supor" "bo" word is similar and the pronunciation is close, the English part is completely consistent, and it is the same type of product, it can be determined that the "Subai" stove involved in the case is an infringing commodity attached to a well-known brand.
"Supor" is a household name brand in the home appliance industry. As a professional operator engaged in the sale and maintenance of home appliances for many years, the defendant should have the ability to distinguish brand trademarks and purchase goods through formal channels. The defendant's purchase and sale of "near brand name" infringing goods may cause consumers to buy irregular goods due to "misidentification", resulting in the plaintiff losing part of potential customers or suffering goodwill damage, so the defendant's sale of infringing goods is an infringement of the exclusive right to use registered trademarks.
In the end, the court ordered the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for economic losses and reasonable expenses, and to stop selling the goods that violated the plaintiff's exclusive right to use the registered trademark. After the judgment took effect, the defendant offered to pay compensation, which has now been fulfilled.
Here to remind operators, in the daily business process, we must pay attention to the correct use of trademarks, avoid brand-name, free riding and other infringements. In addition, the brand side should also do a good job of trademark layout and rights protection, maintain brand rights and interests, and avoid damage to the reputation of the enterprise because of trademark problems! (Source: Jin Mingbiao)
More information and services
The official subscription number of "Shenkexin Intellectual Property Rights" on the code
Code on the concern [Shenkexin intellectual property service platform] official service number
Related Cases
On December 14, 2014, Jiangzhong Pharmaceutical Group approved and registered the trademark No. 13055691 "Monkey Mushroom", which is valid until December 13, 2024. On June 28, 2015, Jiangzhong Pharmaceutical Group approved the registration of the trademark No. 14717187 "Jiangzhong Monkey Mushroom", which is valid until June 27, 2025. The above two trademarks are approved for use on Class 30 goods: coffee; Chocolate drinks; Tea; Tea beverage; Sugar; Honey; Pollen fitness cream; Cookies; Cake; Pancakes; Food made from grain flour; Macaroons (pastries); Bread; Pies (pastries); Pastries; Oat food; Breakfast foods made from grains, dried fruits and nuts;
2022-10-28
Copyright help trademark, Baby bus successfully rights!
Recently, a trademark invalidation dispute involving panda Qiqi and panda Miaomiao image works has made new progress. After hearing, the Beijing Higher People's Court found that the registration of the trademark No. 34281621 "BUQI PANDA and Figure" (hereinafter referred to as the trademark involved) constituted the situation of "applying for trademark registration shall not harm the existing prior rights of others" in China's trademark law, and finally revoked the first-instance judgment and the ruling that the trademark involved should be upheld. On January 7, 2020, Fuzhou Zhiyong Company (formerly known as Baby Bus Company) filed a request for invalidation of trademark No. 34281621 "BUQI PANDA and Picture", believing that Little Dimples Technology Company registered its published and Copyrights of fine art works as trademarks.
2022-10-25
Baidu, the appellant, believes that The "Anysay intelligent robot" developed by Wo Xi Company and sold by Ya LAN Company infringes the exclusive right of Baidu's registered trademarks No. 15668021, No. 24315163, No. 27165477, No. 30569391, No. 13754556, No. 15667594 and No. 24315397. At the same time, Wo Xi company claims that its products are the world's first Baidu voice intelligent robot, the strongest brain robot, claiming that the company is the official partner of Baidu /AI/DUEROS, and its legal representative claims to be the founder of Xiaodu robot, which constitutes false propaganda.
2022-10-25
Recently, the intellectual property case trial team of Xiaonan District Court successfully concluded two trademark infringement cases, which not only effectively cracked down on intellectual property violations, but also sounded the alarm for online shop operators and platform operators.
2022-10-24
Baidu sued Baidu trademark company infringement awarded 600,000 | Attached judgment
Recently, Beijing Baidu Network information Technology Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as "Baidu Network Information Company"), Baidu Online Network Technology (Beijing) Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as "Baidu Online Company") and Wenzhou Rich and Intellectual Property Rights Agency Co., LTD. (formerly Ruian Baidu Trademark Agency Co., LTD., hereinafter referred to as "Rich and Company") infringement of trademark rights and unfair competition dispute first instance civil judgment published.
2022-10-14
On September 26, the Beijing Court Trial Information Network published the first-instance legal documents related to the case between Hangzhou Wahaha Group Co., Ltd. and the State Intellectual Property Office. The document shows that the State Intellectual Property Office has found that the trademarks of "LEHAHA" and "Wahaha" are not similar, and ruled that the "LEHAHA" trademark should be maintained. Wahaha said that the contested trademark and the cited trademark are similar in overall appearance, call, combination form, meaning, etc., which is easy to confuse and misidentify consumers, and should be judged as similar. Therefore, the court was requested to revoke the ruling and ordered the Intellectual Property Office to make a new ruling.
2022-09-27
Tsingtao Beer was founded in 1903, with a long history of nearly 120 years, the long time span has given "Tsingtao Beer" enough influence and extremely high visibility, its success was selected in China's first ten well-known trademarks, the brand value is self-evident. Laoshan Beer is also widely known as the second brand of Tsingtao Beer Co., LTD.
2022-09-23
The case is an Uncommon trademark infringement dispute in the United States, with the plaintiff being Uncommon,LLC and the defendant being Spigen, Inc. Both plaintiff and defendant are manufacturers and retailers of mobile phone cases. The plaintiff began promoting the "CAPSULE" brand of phone cases in 2009, and the first transaction of this product occurred in July 2010. Then, in September 2012, the plaintiff applied to the United States Patent and Trademark Office for registration of trademark No. 4338254, the trademark information is as follows:
2022-09-22
Nanjing Dapai has won two trademark cases against it in Anhui. On July 11 and August 31, 2022, the Hefei Intermediate People's Court successively ruled in two judgments that Nanjing Dahui Enterprise Development Co., LTD. (referred to as Nanjing Dahui), the owner of Nanjing Dahui File, won the case.
2022-09-21
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
