Because the slogan is attractive
Buy a brand of wine to taste
It doesn't taste like it's advertised
I feel cheated
Go to court
Ask for a refund and an apology
Is that OK?
Take a look with Pengfajun
This dispute over wine
1Brief of the case
One day, A Wen (a pseudonym) in a wine company to buy a bottle of a brand of wine, the price of 998 yuan. On the same day, a wine company issued Shenzhen VAT ordinary invoice to A Wen. After a Wen invited friends to taste the wine, feel that the taste is general, questioned its market size and share did not reach the advertising called "one of China's two big sauce-flavored liquor", and felt that because of the misleading believe in the above advertising language and bought the wine. According to this, A Wen appealed to the Futian District People's Court of Shenzhen, requesting a judgment to order a wine company to stop using the advertising slogan, and return the purchase amount of 988 yuan, publicly eliminate the impact on the media involved, and apologize.
2Court hearing
The court held that the case was a dispute over a sale contract. First of all, the plaintiff proposed to mislead the purchase of the brand wine involved in the case due to false advertising, and asked for a refund. For the advertisement slogan involved in the case, the China Advertising Association provided the corresponding "Advertising Consultation Opinion", which believes that the advertisement does not violate the Advertising Law and relevant provisions, and can be published and broadcast. The plaintiff believes that a wine company has made false propaganda, but the relevant competent authorities have not identified or punished the advertising language involved, so the plaintiff's claim is insufficient. Secondly, the plaintiff purchased the brand wine involved in the case, the product belongs to the Maotai-flavored liquor and there is no dispute, there is no wrong or fraudulent situation, the plaintiff misled by advertising to buy the brand wine involved in the case to terminate the contract lacks basis, the court does not support.
In addition, the plaintiff's request for the defendant to stop using the advertising slogan involved in the case, and publicly eliminate the impact in the media, and make an apology do not belong to the rights and obligations under the sales contract, and do not belong to the scope of the trial of the case. Therefore, the court does not support the above two claims of the plaintiff in this case.
In summary, the court ruled that the plaintiff's claim was dismissed. After the judgment, the plaintiff refused to accept and appealed, and the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
3Peng Fajun said
In recent years, there has been a large increase in the number of alcohol consumer rights protection cases. Whether "alcohol advertising slogan" involves misleading publicity, consumers should make a reasonable judgment when they are not sure whether the product is as described. In this case, the scope of application of advertising language is analyzed from the Angle of whether the advertising language is misleading. After the case came into effect, the advertising language of the liquor enterprise was greatly changed, which just confirms the value of law popularization of the judgment from the side.
Law link
Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests
Article 2 The rights and interests of consumers who purchase or use commodities or receive services for daily consumption purposes shall be protected by this Law; Those not provided for in this Law shall be protected by other relevant laws and regulations.
Anti-unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China
Article 8 A business operator shall not make false or misleading commercial publicity about the performance, function, quality, sales status, user evaluations, or previous honors of its commodities, so as to deceive or mislead consumers.
Business operators shall not, by organizing false transactions or other means, help other business operators to carry out false or misleading commercial publicity.
Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Cases of Unfair Competition
Article VIII If an operator has one of the following acts, which is sufficient to cause misunderstanding among the relevant public, it can be identified as the misleading false publicity act provided for in Article 9, paragraph 1, of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law:
(1) one-sided propaganda or comparison of commodities;
(2) using scientifically inconclusive views, phenomena, etc. as conclusive facts for commodity publicity;
(3) advertising commodities in ambiguous language or in other misleading ways.
The promotion of goods in an obvious exaggerated way is not enough to cause misunderstanding among the relevant public, and does not belong to the false propaganda behavior that causes misunderstanding.
The people's court shall, on the basis of such factors as daily life experience, the general attention of the relevant public, the fact of the misunderstanding and the actual situation of the propagandised object, determine the false propaganda acts that cause misunderstanding. Source: Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court
More information and services
The official subscription number of "Deep Trusted Intellectual Property Rights" on the code
Code on the concern [deep trusted intellectual property service platform] official service number
Related Cases
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
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
Recently, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court concluded a case concerning "Jager" trademark infringement and unfair competition. After trial, the court ordered the three defendants, Shenglola (Qingdao) Wine Co., LTD. (referred to as Shenglola Company), Hefei Puyuan Trading Co., LTD. (referred to as Puyuan Company), and Sing Mou to immediately stop trademark infringement and unfair competition, and publish a statement to eliminate the impact. And compensate the plaintiff Master Zagamist European Company (referred to as Master Company) economic losses, punitive damages, reasonable expenses of more than 10 million yuan.
2022-12-16
Recently, according to the Guangdong Provincial High People's Court news, the game "My World" agency, v. the game "Mini World" development company, infringement of its copyright and unfair competition case final judgment. The court found that "Mini World" development company "Shenzhen Mini Play" constituted unfair competition, ordered it to delete 230 infringing elements in the game, and compensate "Minecraft" agency "NetEase" 50 million yuan.
2022-12-07
The use of "Beijing Erguotou" was convicted of infringement
The story starts with two enterprises Beijing Red Star Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Red Star Company) Xianghe Jingyun Distillery (hereinafter referred to as Jingyun Distillery) In 2018, Red Star found that the packaging of wine products produced by Jingyun Distillery and Red Star Company's No. 4600693 three-dimensional graphic trademark, whether from the overall composition or local information to compare, Both constitute substantial similarity and are suspected to constitute trademark infringement.
2022-12-05
Guangzhou Weimanduo Catering Enterprise Management Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Weimanduo Company) registered a number of trademarks ""," ", ""," and ". As of May 2018, Weimando has opened more than 50 "Tart Lime" hand tart lemon tea drink stores in Guangzhou, and the tea product packaging and decoration with "" pattern have been used and promoted for a long time, and have gained certain popularity. The trademark registered or authorized to be used by Guangzhou Shangyi Brand Operation Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Shangyi Company) is "" "", but the company uses "" "" logo in its model store and official website promotion, and authorized Guangzhou Dele Catering Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Dele Company) on shop signs and beverage packaging.
2022-11-28
The Court of second instance held that without the permission of HBI Company, the owner of the registered trademark of "Champion" brand, Weisi Company opened a number of "Champion" brand stores and sold counterfeit "Champion" brand products, which constituted infringement of the exclusive right to use the registered trademark of HBI company and unfair competition. The qualitative conduct of Jinshuangniu Company in this case should be reflected in the following aspects:
2022-11-02
"Walnut" music restaurant trademark rights, Taixing a restaurant was fined 120,000 yuan!
Food, wine, music... These elements come together to form a popular music restaurant. A restaurant in Taixing has been ordered to pay 120,000 yuan in compensation for trademark infringement and unfair competition, according to a ruling issued by the Taizhou Intermediate People's Court. 1. Brief description of the case A Walnut music restaurant in Nanjing illegally used the walnut trademark and was sued in court. Many young people are no strangers to Hu Taoli Music restaurant, which was founded in Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, and has opened stores in about 200 cities across the country in recent years. Its trademark owner is Shenzhen Helongitudinal Culture Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as "Helongitudinal Company").
2022-11-01
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
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
