The court heard that
“
”The trademark was registered on November 21, 2008, far earlier than March 31, 2017, when Daly Garden Company was established, the above trademark rights belong to the prior rights for the registration of Daly Garden Company, and Daly Garden Company shall not conflict with it when registering the business name.
Secondly，“
”After a long period of operation, the trademark has already gained a certain popularity when Dali Garden Company was established. Both Dali Company and Dali Garden Company operate in the same industry, including food, and both Dali Company and Dali Garden Company are registered in Fujian Province. In this case, Dali Garden Company is obviously aware of the existence and popularity of the "Dali Garden" trademark. Its use of "Dali Garden" in the enterprise name has malicious intent.
At the same time, Daly Garden Company and Daly Company are independent of each other and do not have any connection. Daly Garden Company's use of "Daly Garden" as a business name will cause the public to mistakenly believe that Daly Garden Company has a specific connection with Daly Company based on the recognition of the "Daly Garden" trademark, causing confusion.
For the above reasons，Dali Garden company uses "Dali Garden" as the enterprise name, which constitutes unfair competition, and Dali company's claim is established.
On the basis of Anti-unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China Article 17 and Article 4 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Trial of Civil Disputes Involving Registered Trademarks, Enterprise Names and Prior Rights Conflicts, Mawei Court ruled:Daliyuan Company shall stop using the word "Fuzhou Daliyuan" on its production and sales of beverage packaging bags, stop using the name containing "Daliyuan" in the enterprise name, stop using the enterprise name with the word "Daliyuan" in the internal and external packaging of beverages and exhibitions, and compensate Daliyuan Company for economic losses and reasonable expenses of 200,000 yuan.
Judge's statement
"Near the famous brand" is risky, "free riding" need to be cautious. This kind of "trademark attachment" behavior not only seriously damages the legitimate rights and interests of brand enterprises and consumers, but also disrupts the order of market economy and destroys the market environment of fair competition. Dali Garden company in the name of the enterprise has the corresponding market visibility and reputation of the "Dali Garden" registered trademark, and the scope of business also belongs to the same industry or directly related industries, obviously has the subjective intention of "free riding" "near the famous brand", is an improper means, and has paid the corresponding price.
Here to remind the majority of consumers in the purchase of goods, should choose to buy the brand authorized merchants, otherwise once bought fake and shoddy goods, it is difficult to claim rights to the brand. When the operator sells or provides goods, it should purchase from regular agents and dealers. Business operators should perform the duty of careful examination of the goods they sell, and protect the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, but also protect their own interests.
Brand is an important carrier to build a modern economic system, and is also a core element to promote high-quality economic development and enhance international competitiveness. In recent years, Fujian courts have given full play to the functions of the people's courts in combating infringement and counterfeiting and optimizing the business environment. By strengthening the trial of cases in key areas such as platform economy, scientific and technological innovation, information security and livelihood protection, and timely releasing typical cases, Fujian courts have strengthened the judicial protection of well-known trademarks, well-known brands and time-honored brands, effectively promoting fair market competition. We will maintain the normal order of the market and guide the whole society to form a good atmosphere of respecting intellectual property rights, operating with integrity, cultivating brands, and encouraging innovation.
Law link
《Anti-unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China》Article 6 A business operator shall not engage in any of the following acts of confusion to cause people to be mistaken for another person's commodities or to have a specific connection with another person:
(1) Unauthorized use of the name of a commodity, packaging, decoration, etc., which is the same or similar to others;
(2) Unauthorized use of enterprise names (including abbreviations, shop names, etc.), social organization names (including abbreviations, etc.), names (including pen names, stage names, translated names, etc.) that have certain influence on others;
(3) Unauthorized use of the main part of the domain name, the name of the website, the webpage, etc., which has certain influence on others;
(4) other acts of confusion that are sufficient to cause people to be mistaken for the goods of others or have specific connections with others.
Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China Article 58 Where a registered trademark or an unregistered well-known trademark of another person is used as a shop name in the name of an enterprise to mislead the public and constitute an act of unfair competition, the provisions shall apply Anti-unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China Deal. (Source: Fujian High Court)
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
Yao Anna No. 36878950 "Yao Anna" trademark was applied for registration by the respondent Guo, approved for use in cosmetics and other commodities. The trademark was declared invalid by Yao Siwei and Huawei Technologies Co., LTD. (i.e., applicants 1 and 2 in this case). Applicant 1, whose stage name is "Yao Anna", is well known due to his association with Applicant 2 and Ren Zhengfei. The respondent failed to provide a reasonable source for the word "YAOANNA", and maliciously registered YAO Anna's English name "ANNABEL YAO" and pinyin "YAOANNA" and "Yao Anna".
2022-09-05
Recently, the Supreme People's Court made a final judgment on an invention patent infringement dispute involving air conditioning, rejecting the appeals of both appellants, and upholding the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court's decision that the accused infringing party Guangdong Meibo Refrigeration Equipment Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Guangdong Meibo Company) immediately stop the infringement. And compensate the patentee TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as TCL Company) economic losses, a total of 1.68 million yuan of the first instance judgment.
2022-09-02
The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court has ruled that the plaintiff, Shenzhen Quanwei Intellectual Property Operation Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Quanwei Company), and the defendant, Guangdong Fuaisi Ecological Technology Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Fuaisi Company), be allowed to withdraw the lawsuit. In this case, Quanwei Company appealed to the court to order Fuaisi Company to stop infringing the invention patent, dismantle the tower granulation equipment, and compensate for economic losses of 10 million yuan.
2022-09-02
Brilliance Auto is suing Dongfeng and Honda in the US over sensor-related patents
(August 31), Auto Brilliance LLC (hereinafter referred to as "Brilliance Automobile") filed a lawsuit in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Japanese automakers Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Nissan") and Honda Motor Co. (hereinafter referred to as "Honda"). The complaint alleges that Nissan and Honda infringed patents related to sensor calibration and adjustment claimed by Brilliance.
2022-09-02
Recently, the People's Music Publishing House Co., Ltd. added a court announcement, the case of infringement of trademark rights disputes. Plaintiff: People's Music Publishing House Co., LTD. Defendant: Shaoxing City Shangyu District Mingyin Music Company.
2022-08-31
There are many "West Gate" appliances, Siemens has sued the court in fact, consumers want to buy Siemens appliances but bought back "West Gate" is not a case. These users who buy "West Gate" electrical appliances are basically introduced to buy goods, and when they buy, the other party is introduced to "Siemens" and "big brand". In October last year, Ms. Wang of Zhengzhou also bought a "West door opening" for the new home to add a lampblack machine, and finally complained to the market supervision department. In July last year, Shenzhen Siemens L & Auer Electrical Equipment Co. Ltd. was also sued by Siemens China for trademark infringement.
2022-08-30
Tingyi has also been caught up in trademark infringement cases. Once Master Kang was "Kang Shuaifu" played around, and now "Master Kang" is often due to "trademark infringement", "unfair competition" into everyone's vision.
2022-08-24
Lanzhou Foci Company, the plaintiff in the basic case, is a joint-stock company established by the former Shanghai Foci Pharmaceutical Co., LTD., which moved west to Lanzhou in 1956. It is a manufacturer of many well-known traditional Chinese medicine products and was named "China Time-honored Brand" by the Ministry of Commerce in December 2006. On April 21, 1996, the "Foci" trademark was registered and continues to be used by Foci.
2022-08-18
The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court recently made a final judgment on the trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute between appellant Sichuan Tiandi Publishing House Co., Ltd. and appellant Shanghai Children's Publishing House Co., LTD. : The appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld. The court found that Tiandi Publishing House's use of "100,000 whys" in 14 book titles, book covers, sales pictures and descriptions constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition by using the unique names of well-known commodities without authorization, and the use of "100,000 Whys is a classic reading that affects generations of people... This book is an upgraded version of "100,000 why" and other expressions, which constitute unfair competition of false propaganda, and should bear civil liabilities such as stopping infringement, publishing a statement to eliminate the impact and compensate for losses.
2022-08-07
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
