For a period of time from 1998 to 1999, the industrial and commercial administration found a wine on the market with the registered trademark "Tianxiajing" produced by a certain winery. The front and sides of its outer packaging The graphics, fonts, and colors are basically similar to the "Marlboro" cigarette packaging box produced by the American Philip Morris Company. Even the trademark printed on the seal is similar to the "Marlboro" cigarette seal. This matter was discovered by the Industrial and Commercial Administration Bureau, so the Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce ordered the winery to stop selling the wine, confiscated all the outer packaging of the "Tianxiajing" wine, and fined the factory. The factory was dissatisfied, arguing that "Marlboro" and "Marboro" were cigarette trademarks, and their use of them in wine packaging did not constitute infringement, so they took the case to court.

Question: Has the winery infringed on the well-known trademarks of "Marlboro" and "M arb o ro" used on cigarettes by Philip Morris Co., Ltd. of the United States?

Answer: my country’s Trademark Law stipulates that using words or graphics that are identical or similar to another person’s registered trademark as a product name or product decoration, which is enough to cause misunderstanding, is an act that infringes on the exclusive rights of another person’s registered trademark. However, this provision has a prerequisite, that is, "on the same or similar goods." In this case, wine and cigarettes are obviously not the same or similar goods. However, the trademarks "Marlboro" and "M arboro" are well-known trademarks used on cigarettes by Philip Morris Co., Ltd. of the United States and have been registered in my country (trademark registration numbers are 352035 and 2794737 respectively). This trademark has long become a well-known and reputable trademark among consumers in the market. In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and international practice, well-known trademarks should expand the scope of protection.

Apparently, a winery uses words and graphics that are identical or similar to the trademarks "Marlboro" and "Marboro" as decoration for wine packaging boxes, which is an infringement of the exclusive right to register a trademark. Recently, some enterprises or individual industrial and commercial households often plagiarize and imitate well-known trademarks on the goods and packaging they produce or distribute. Local industrial and commercial administrative agencies will resolutely investigate and deal with such infringements of the exclusive rights of well-known trademarks. This kind of infringement first confuses consumers about the origin of the goods. A well-known trademark can distinguish a specific relationship between a product and a certain producer or operator, that is, it indicates the source of the product. Whenever the trademark is mentioned, consumers will naturally think of its production company. Even if non-similar goods use other people's well-known trademarks, consumers may mistakenly believe that there is some internal connection between the two economically, operationally or organizationally, thus causing confusion about the origin of the goods. Secondly, it affects consumers’ trust in the quality of well-known trademarks. Trademarks have the function of indicating the specific quality of goods. If someone else's well-known trademark is used on non-similar goods, it is easy for consumers with the right to use it to mistakenly believe that the quality of the goods is the same as that specified by the well-known trademark that everyone trusts. Once the goods used are of inferior quality, it will naturally damage the reputation of the well-known trademark. Thirdly, using someone else’s well-known trademark on some non-similar goods may have adverse consequences due to the performance of the goods. If a well-known trademark of food appears on a drug, the right holder will be intimidated by the food with the well-known trademark. It is generally known that using other people’s well-known trademarks on non-similar goods is nothing more than trying to promote one’s own products by relying on consumers’ good impressions of the well-known trademarks. From an objective point of view, the consequences of this are damage to the well-known trademarks. Reputation has deceived consumers. Therefore, it is beneficial to society, enterprises and consumers to expand the scope of protection of well-known trademarks.

Therefore, the court ultimately ruled against the winery and supported the Industrial and Commercial Bureau’s decision to impose a penalty.