"The right to exclusive use of trademarks actually contains property rights, so when you use another person's registered trademark, you must be authorized by the trademark owner and pay the relevant fees. Generally speaking, unauthorized use is not allowed."
Recently, the Yuzhong District People's Court of Chongqing concluded a case of infringement of trademark rights and unfair competition. An education company in Chongqing was sentenced to immediately stop the infringement, eliminate the impact and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 20,000 yuan due to setting other people's trademarks as keywords in the search engine promotion.
Chongqing Zhyifang Education Information Consulting Service Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Zhyifang Company) and Chongqing Xinmou Education Technology Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Xinmou Company) are the owners of the trademark "Xinmou Education". It has certain popularity and influence in the education and training industry in Chongqing.
On September 29, 2022, the agent of a company of Xin found that the two keywords of "Xin" and "Xin education" were searched respectively in the Baidu search engine, and the first search result displayed on the search page was the website information of Gao Zheng Education Technology Group Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Gao Zheng Company).
The original informed a company and Xin company that the defendant Gaozheng Company set up the keywords "Xin" and "Xin education" in the keywords promoted by Baidu, which infringed the trademark rights of Zhizheng Company and Xin company and constituted unfair competition, and then appealed to the court, requiring Gaozheng Company to stop trademark infringement and unfair competition, eliminate the impact and compensate the plaintiff for economic losses and reasonable expenses. Links to the keywords in question have been removed by Baidu.
After hearing, the court held that whether Gaozheng Company's setting of "Xin" and "Xin education" as keywords infringes on the trademark rights of a company or a company, it should consider whether the link search content plays a role in identifying the source of goods or services, causing the public to confuse "Xin" and "Xin education" with Gaozheng Company, constituting trademark use.
In this case, after searching "Xin Mou" in Baidu search engine, the first search result shows the link content of "Gao Zheng focuses on teacher exam training, Shen's four major course system", which not only contains relevant information about Gao Zheng, but also writes "Xin's four major course system" in the description of the content. It is easy for the relevant public to mistake the course system of Gaozheng Department "Xin Mou" or the existence of some specific relationship between Gaozheng Company and "Xin mou", which will confuse the relevant public and play a role in identifying the source of goods or services. The court held that Gaozheng Company should be found to set "Xin" as a keyword, constituting trademark use. For another keyword "Shen education", that is, after searching "Shen Education" in the Baidu search engine, the link content of the first "Gao Zheng teacher training institution" "but the agreement refund" and other link content. There is no relevant text content of "Xin Mou" in the title and description of the link, and there is no relevant content of "Xin mou Education" when clicking on the website, but the brand introduction and registration course of Gaozheng Company itself, which does not have the role of indicating the source of goods or services, and will not cause the relevant public to misidentify. Mistakenly believe that the link refers to the plaintiff's "Xin Education" trademark or has a specific connection with it. Therefore, the defendant's setting of the keyword "Xin education" in Baidu search does not belong to the trademark use, and does not constitute an infringement of the plaintiff's exclusive right to use the registered trademark. At the same time, Gao Zheng company set up "Xin mou" and "Xin Mou education" keywords in Baidu's bidding ranking promotion, which borrowed the popularity and influence of "Xin mou" brand, improved the click-through rate and customer traffic of its own website, caused information interference to network users, increased user search costs, and objectively caused losses to the market operation of a certain company and Xin mou. Therefore, the court finally found that Gaozheng Company constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition, taking into account the popularity and influence of the "Xin Education" trademark, the subjective intent of Gaozheng Company's infringement, the duration and scope of infringement, and the reasonable expenses incurred by the rights holder, and other factors, then made the above judgment. After the judgment of the first instance, neither side appealed, and the judgment has taken legal effect.
Judge's reminder
The right to exclusive use of trademarks actually contains property rights, so when using another person's registered trademark, it must be authorized by the trademark owner and pay the relevant fees, in general, it can not be used without authorization.
Operators carry out network marketing through Internet search engines, and set keywords in the promotion platform to obtain higher search result rankings. The user discovers the information and clicks through to the web page. However, in order to improve the exposure of their own goods or services, some merchants improperly set other people's trademarks as keywords, borrowing the goodwill and influence of others' trademarks to improve their own website click rate and attract customer traffic will face the legal risk of infringement. As a network operator should improve their own legal awareness, reasonable keywords, to avoid malicious use of keywords brought by the legal risk. (Original title: Set others' trademarks as keywords in search engines, an education company in Chongqing was sentenced to stop infringement, eliminate the impact, and compensate for losses) Source: People's Court News
More intellectual property information and services
The official subscription number of "Deep Trusted Intellectual Property Rights" on the code
More deeply trusted dynamic news, authorization cases, important cases/data/reports in the intellectual industry, etc
Code on the concern [deep trusted intellectual property service platform] official service number
Related Cases
Case 1: Ma Muhua and other eight people committed the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks Case 2: Shenzhen Zushu Technology Co., Ltd. v. Shenzhen You Film Media Co., Ltd. and other network unfair competition dispute Case 3: Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. v. Shenzhen Questor Network Technology Co., Ltd. infringement of copyright and unfair competition dispute case 4: Shenzhen Zhisuo Information Technology Co., Ltd. v. Speed Snail (Shenzhen) Intelligence Co., Ltd. infringement of trade secrets Dispute Case 5: Shenzhen Jingying Light Technology Co., Ltd. and Chen Mou infringement of trade secrets dispute case six: Beijing Legal Information Technology Co., Ltd. v. Shenzhen Red Stone Decoration Engineering Co., Ltd. infringement of works information network communication right dispute case
2023-05-30
What did the authorized dealer do when he became a trademark infringement offender?
The defendant Wang Mou, without the permission of the right holder, commissioned a Shanghai biotechnology Co., Ltd. to produce an eye cream printed with the registered trademark freezeframe. In March and July 2019, the two sides signed two procurement contracts. Defendant Wang instructed a Shanghai biotechnology Co., Ltd. to produce a total of more than 150,000 fake freezeframe brand eye cream, with a total price of more than 3.45 million yuan. After the completion of production, Wang, as the general distributor, sold some of the eye cream involved to domestic distributors and then sold it to consumers. Later, some consumers reflected that the eye cream was counterfeit goods, so the case. After the incident, the public security organs to seize the eye cream to identify, are counterfeit goods. The defendant Wang Mou was arrested by the public security organs, denied the above criminal facts.
2023-03-24
1, satellite navigation chip invention patent infringement case 2, "artificial bone" technology investment patent rights case 3, gene fingerprint detection of new varieties of plants 4, "tower granulation production particle compound fertilizer" invention patent infringement case 5, divided case application patent temporary protection fee case 6, involving criminal and civil cross technical secrets infringement case 7, Innovation "double cycle, multiple rounds" identification computer software infringement case 8, "You Manager" wechat marketing software unfair competition case 9, "Takeup switching device" service invention patent application right case 10, German enterprise "modified polyisocyanate" invention patent infringement case
2023-03-01
Guangdong High Court issued six typical cases of intellectual property crimes
Typical criminal cases of intellectual property rights in Guangdong courts 1, Yan and others counterfeiting registered trademarks - punishing the trademark crime of "second-hand refurbished" electrical appliances disguised as "original genuine products" 2, Yang Moumou, Wang Mou copyright infringement case - Combating the crime of online film and television works piracy 3, PI Moumou trade secret infringement case - Punishing the crime of former employees violating the technical secrets of the original enterprise Four, Dong Mou and others counterfeit registered trademark case - severely punish the crime of manufacturing and selling counterfeit registered trademark masks Five, Wang Mou's sale of counterfeit registered trademark case - Combat electric bullet window new form of trademark crime Six, Gao Mou repeatedly sold counterfeit registered trademark case - punish the trademark crime of live broadcasting with goods to know fake sales
2023-01-04
Galima Company claims that the product accused of infringement adopts the design of the appearance patent No. ZL202030343224.9, and its behavior does not constitute infringement. In this regard, the Court of second instance held that Article 23 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Disputes (II) provides that: "Where the alleged infringing technical scheme or design falls within the scope of protection of the prior patent right involved, and the accused infringer argues that his technical scheme or design has been granted a patent right to not infringe the patent right involved, the people's court shall not support it."
2022-12-16
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
