Source: Credit China
According to the official website, Hello is a local travel and life service platform, which was established in September 2016. At present, Hello mainly provides mobile travel services and emerging local services, among which, mobile travel services include two-wheel sharing services (Hello bike, Hello moped) and four-wheel travel services (Hello hitch, Hello taxi); Emerging local services include its own brand Hello electric vehicles, with Ant Group, Ningde times joint venture to establish a small Harbin power, and car rental service aggregation platform Hello car rental.
It is worth noting that Hallo was ready to list on the US stock market in 2021. However, shortly thereafter, the company said that "after careful consideration by management, it has issued a statement to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission requesting the withdrawal of its previously filed IPO application."
According to the listing prospectus of Haro, the revenue of Haro in 2018, 2019 and 2020 was 2.136 billion yuan, 4.823.3 billion yuan and 6.0443 billion yuan respectively; Losses were 2,207.5 billion yuan, 1,504.6 billion yuan and 1,133.5 billion yuan respectively, with a cumulative loss of nearly 5 billion yuan in three years.
Source: Thepaper.cn
The same black and blue body, white striped letters...Recently, in a trial involving trademark infringement and unfair competition in commodity packaging and decoration, two shared electric bicycles were moved to the center of the court.
The two similar shared bikes, one from Hello Travel, were the plaintiffs in the trial; One is printed with the words "little beautiful travel", is the defendant in the case.
The plaintiff Shanghai Junzheng Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Junfeng Network Technology Co., Ltd. are the operators of the "Hello travel" platform, which includes the comprehensive business of Hello bicycle, Hello moped, hello electric vehicle service, Hello power change and Hello ride.
The defendant, Hangzhou Qilin Information Technology Co., LTD., was established in May 2020 and is the operator of "small beautiful travel" shared vehicles.
The plaintiff believes that the defendant uses trademark logos, packaging and decoration similar and similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark on the "little Liang travel" shared electric bicycle of similar goods and services without permission, which is easy to cause confusion and misidentification of consumers.
The defendant argued that the graphics used on the shared motorcycles released by the company were a combination of the two initial letters "X" and "L" in the pinyin of "Xiao Liang", which were different from the registered trademarks of the plaintiff, and the packaging and decoration of the shared motorcycles of the two parties were also different. The defendant's car model is different from the plaintiff's, and the body and the scanning code are attached to the graphics that are different from the plaintiff's registered trademark.
“Although our shared electric bikes are similar in color to the plaintiff's vehicles, there are also differences.”The defendant stated that.
Do the two motorcycles constitute similar graphic logos? Does the graphic logo used by the defendant infringe the exclusive right to use a registered trademark? At the trial, two motorcycles were brought to court.
After hearing, the court held that, first of all, the defendant violated the plaintiff's exclusive right to use the registered trademark.
From the comparison of whole and part, the trademark picture used by the defendant is more prominent in the overall body, accounting for the main part, and the shape, design elements and actual color of the trademark are similar to the picture of the plaintiff's registered trademark, and its constituent elements are very close, which is easy to cause the relevant public to misidentify the source of the product.
The trademark pictures printed by the defendant on the shared motorcycles placed by the Defendant are consistent with the distinctive features of the Plaintiff's registered graphic trademarks in terms of shape, design elements and actual used colors.
Although the pattern used by the sued motorcycle is a combination of the letters "X" and "L", rather than the letter "H", the letter is also a hollow letter composed of three lines, and also has a similar inclination to the plaintiff's trademark. Moreover, the constituent letter L of the defendant's trademark "approximates the right slash of" H "and is deliberately designed to combine the letters" X "and" L "in a manner that approximates the letter" H ". As a result, the defendant's unregistered graphic trademark is similar to the plaintiff's graphic trademark as a whole. Furthermore, the actual use color of the Defendant's trademark is white, the same color as the actual use color of the Plaintiff's trademark.
Secondly, the defendant's conduct also constitutes unfair competition.
In this case, the original and defendant companies have the same or similar business scope and belong to operators in the same industry of shared travel, so there is a competitive relationship between them. After comparison, it can be seen that in terms of packaging design, overall color and decoration combination, pattern composition, etc., the packaging and decoration of the defendant and the plaintiff are highly similar, and should be determined to constitute a substantial similarity.
The court held that the defendant constituted an act of trademark infringement and unfair competition, and should bear the infringement liability of stopping the infringement, eliminating the impact and compensating for the loss. Finally, the defendant Qilin Company immediately stopped the infringement and unfair competition of the trademark and packaging and decoration involved, removed the infringing graphic logo on the shared motorcycle and changed the body color. As appropriate, Qilin Company was determined to compensate a total of 200,000 yuan for economic losses, and an apology statement of no less than 7 days was published in a prominent position on the home page of the official website and in the wechat public account "Xiao Liang Travel" to eliminate the impact.
At present, the judgment in this case has taken effect, and the defendant company says it will actively implement the judgment.
Source: Hangzhou Daily
Related Cases
Recently, Yuhang District People's Court in Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, announced a case of Huawei trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute.
2022-06-21
The company was sued by iQiyi for falsifying video access data
It is understood that the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court of Zhejiang Province (hereinafter referred to as "Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court") has made a new first-instance judgment on the patent infringement case of Foshan Shunde District Midea Washing Appliance Manufacturing Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as "Midea") v. Huadi Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as "Huadi") dishwasher (2021) Zhejiang 01 Zhminchu No. 544,
2022-06-21
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
