Why China's Light is embroiled in trademark disputes? Are there any similarities between the two logos? Can common ground settle trademark disputes? Old domestic trademark disputes, how to establish a mechanism to protect from scratch?
Beijing Radio and Television Science and Education Channel "Civil Code Interpretation and Reading" column specially invited Beijing Intellectual Property Court judge Ma Xingfang and senior media person Zhang Chunwei, for you to interpret the trademark "defense war" of domestic brands.
Typical case
In March 2016, the company applied for the registration of two graphic trademarks known as "F hook", which were printed on shoes, socks and other goods produced by the company as decoration. With the popularity of these goods, the original "F hook" as a decorative piece has gradually become one of the main trademarks of Hui. However, in February 2020, Huili received a ruling from the State Intellectual Property Office that the registration of the "F Hook" trademark was invalid.
Originally, in January 2020, in the process of protecting the two trademarks held by an enterprise in Zhejiang, it was found that the two "F-hook" trademarks of Hui Li Company were similar to their previous registered trademarks, and were registered on clothing, shoes and other goods. As a result, an enterprise in Zhejiang Province has already registered two trademarks as a reference trademark, and made a request for invalidation of the "F hook" registered trademark of Hui Li Company. In February 2021, the State Intellectual Property Office supported the request of a Zhejiang enterprise.
For the ruling made by the State Intellectual Property Office, Huili believes that the two "F-hook" trademarks and the quoted trademarks of a Zhejiang enterprise do not constitute similar trademarks, and will not confuse consumers in actual use. In the case of ineffective negotiation, after internal discussion, Huili Company filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.
In the course of the case, in order to recover its "F-hook" trademark, the company collected a lot of historical data to prove that it has been using the trademark for many years. Huili Company has also communicated with a Zhejiang enterprise on the coexistence of trademarks. In this case, considering the clear intention of both parties to seek the coexistence of trademarks and the impact that the handling of the case may have on the development of enterprises and other factors, in order to completely resolve the contradiction between the two parties, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court repeatedly urged the two parties to communicate and negotiate on the coexistence of trademarks, and finally the two companies reached a settlement and signed the Agreement for the coexistence of Trademarks. The parties agree that the contested marks will coexist with the two cited marks. It is stated in the agreement that an enterprise in Zhejiang agrees that the "F hook" trademark of Huili Company coexists with the two citation trademarks of the enterprise.
Judge's interpretation
The focus of the dispute in this case is whether the contested trademark of Huili Company and the quoted trademark of a Zhejiang enterprise constitute similar trademarks used on the same or similar goods, and whether their coexistence will cause confusion or misidentification of the origin of the goods by the relevant public, thereby violating the amendment of August 30, 2013 Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China The provisions of Article 30.
When judging whether the contested trademark and the cited trademark are similar to the trademark, and whether it will cause the relevant public to confuse or misidentify the source of the goods, the quoted trademark right holder, as a direct interested person, is more concerned than other relevant public. Therefore, when judging whether the co-existence of the admissible trademark and the admissible trademark on the same or similar goods will lead to confusion and misidentification of the relevant public, the co-existence agreement between the admissible trademark right holder and the admissible trademark right holder should be considered. On the one hand, in the case of difference between the contested trademark mark and the cited trademark mark, the trademark coexistence agreement can be used as a reference factor to eliminate the possibility of confusion. On the other hand, the private property of the exclusive right of trademark should be considered. The co-existence agreement of trademark reflects the transfer and disposition of the part of the exclusive right of trademark that the owner of the exclusive right of trademark enjoys. According to the principle of autonomy of will, the owner of the exclusive right of trademark should be allowed to dispose of the exclusive right of trademark freely.
In this case, the difference between the contested trademark and the cited trademark is obvious. From the perspective of graphic design techniques and overall visual effects, there is a big difference between the two. Moreover, the Agreement for the Coexistence of Trademarks signed by Huili Company and a Zhejiang enterprise is the true intention of both parties. An enterprise in Zhejiang expressly agrees that the contested trademarks of Huili Company and their citations coexist on the same or similar goods. In addition, the evidence in the case does not show that the co-existence of the contested mark and the cited mark would be sufficient to harm the interests of the relevant public, in which case the role of the Consent to the Co-existence of the Mark in determining the possibility of confusion should be considered. Therefore, taking the above factors into consideration, it can be found in this case that the contested trademark and the cited trademark are jointly registered and used on the same or similar goods, which is not easy to cause confusion or misidentification of the source of the goods by the relevant public.
Hot spot interpretation
I. Basis for signing the Agreement on Trademark Coexistence between the two Parties
First of all, there is a big difference between the contested trademark and the quoted trademark in this case. Secondly, an enterprise in Zhejiang Province and Huili Company have a clear intention to coexist with each other's trademarks. Taking into account the private property of the exclusive right of trademarks, the Agreement for the coexistence of trademarks reflects the transfer and disposition of part of the exclusive right of trademarks enjoyed by the trademark owner. According to the principle of autonomy of will, the trademark owner should be allowed to freely dispose of its exclusive right of trademarks. Of course, although the Consent for the Coexistence of Trademarks can be used as a reference factor to exclude the possibility of confusion, whether the Consent for the coexistence of trademarks can be adopted by the court depends on whether there are differences in the marks of the two trademarks, and whether it will cause confusion or misidentification of the source of the goods by the relevant public as the final judgment sign. If two trademarks are identical or very similar, even if the two parties have signed the Agreement for the coexistence of trademarks, they cannot be supported by the court.
Second, how to avoid disputes with registered trademarks
As a market management subject, before engaging in business behavior, we should first do a good job of trademark planning. If the enterprise at the beginning of the development of the brand or before entering the market, the first to register their own brand trademark, to prevent others to register. In addition, in the process of using and promoting their own brands, enterprises should pay attention to the collection and preservation of the corresponding trademark use evidence for emergencies.
Third, whether some trademarks similar to big brands infringe trademark rights
When judging whether it constitutes trademark infringement, the following factors should be considered comprehensively: (1) Whether the trademark accused of infringement is the same or similar to the trademark of the right; (2) Whether the goods used in the alleged infringement mark and the goods approved for use in the right trademark belong to the same or similar goods; (3) whether it will cause confusion or misidentification of the source of the goods by the relevant public.
Source: Beijing Law Net
More intellectual property information and services
Pay attention to [Shenkexin Intellectual Property] Official subscription number
More deeply credible dynamic news, important data/report/case, etc.
Pay attention to the [Shenkexin Intellectual Property Service Platform] official service number
Related Cases
Hundreds of toilet water enterprises were sued for trademark infringement due to the production of "honeysuckle" toilet water, and recently welcomed the turning point. In two related cases, the Intermediate People's Court of Zhongshan, Guangdong Province, revoked the original judgment, found that the defendant two Jiangxi companies did not constitute trademark infringement, and rejected the plaintiff Shanghai Bili Cosmetics Company's claims.
2022-08-15
KOHLER Company (KOHLER CO.) is the owner of the "Kohler" registered trademark, the approved use of goods including toilets, urinals (sanitation facilities), etc., the above trademarks within the validity period. A Guangdong law firm was authorized by Kohler to defend the infringement of Kohler's intellectual property rights in China. On March 22, 2021, A Guangdong law firm reported to the Jiangyin Market Supervision Bureau that there were counterfeit goods with the registered trademark of "KOHLER" in Company A.
2022-08-11
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
"Ji Mi" accused "Ji Mi Nut" trademark infringement On August 1, Ji Mi through the official platform, issued a "Ji Mi" trademark was "Ji Mi nut" malicious infringement incident "solemn statement. As a leader in the domestic projector industry, Ji Mi's statement immediately aroused the attention of netizens.
2022-08-07
Recently, in a case involving "Yihetang" trademark infringement and unfair competition disputes, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court applied the rules of evidence disclosure, and found that Yinuo company constituted an obstruction of proof when the defendant refused to submit relevant financial information. After referring to the litigation request and documentary evidence of the right holder Yihuiyin Company, it was determined that Ynuo Company had violated Yihuiyin Company's exclusive right to use the "Yihetang" registered trademark, and the compensation amount was increased from 300,000 yuan in the first instance to 1 million yuan, and Ynuo Company should bear all the litigation costs of the first and second instance.
2022-08-05
Recently, the Guangdong Provincial High People's Court made a final judgment on a trademark infringement dispute, Guangdong Yongquan Valve Technology Co., Ltd. was awarded 10 million yuan, and the infringing party was awarded maximum compensation for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
2022-08-03
Recently, it was learned from the network that an Internet company that opened a flagship store of "West Lake Building Building" on Tmall was fined 780,000 yuan by the Zhejiang Provincial Market Supervision Bureau for selling goods that violated the exclusive right to use the registered trademark of "Building outside Building".
2022-08-02
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
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
